I had several goals for my trip to Iraq. To one degree or another, all were fulfilled, but all will also require additional follow-up.
First, I wanted to meet classical liberal Iraqis to whom I could offer assistance in establishing one or more classical liberal think tanks, publishing houses, magazines, or similar ventures. I met a number of very fine (and remarkably brave and admirable) people. I provided six of them with the resources to travel to another country, where they will take part in a series of libertarian conferences and spend time with libertarian academics and intellectual/political activists to learn more about running such organizations. In the process, they will become integrated into the international community of libertarian think tanks and similar organizations. (See especially the excellent work of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.) (The follow-up will be to provide assistance to autonomous libertarian organizations in Iraq.)
Second, I wanted to meet people who could establish an Arabic-language classical liberal web site that would both provide a library of libertarian classics and ongoing commentary from a libertarian perspective. (I met with some very impressive bloggers of classical liberal persuasion [see, for example, the Friends of Democracy blog, Iraq the Model, and others] and hope to get a serious web site going soon; it will make available public domain material in Arabic, a library of libertarian material in html and PDF formats, and — I hope — regular commentary from a libertarian perspective.)
Third, I wanted to commission translations of important texts in the classical liberal tradition. (Works underway include “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” by Frederic Bastiat, Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity, by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, and Dwight Lee, and some other smaller works. I am working on arranging more translations of works by many other authors, as well.
Fourth, I wanted to promote through presentations, lectures, discussions, interviews, and so forth the idea that a democracy of the sort worth striving for is not merely the unbridled rule of the majority, nor a path toward “one man, one vote, one time,” but a system of limited government dedicated to the definition and protection of rights. It has a democratic component, in the form of elections of representatives (and perhaps also referenda), but the scope of such collective choice is limited. In particular, the state itself is subject to the law (as the Germans put it, a liberal state is a “Rechtsstaat”). Accordingly, I gave a number of lectures and presentations on the “Basic Principles of Constitutional Democracy” (the Powerpoint presentations that I used to supplement my talks are available in English and in Arabic), on the “Challenges of Democratization” (outline in English and in Arabic], on the economics of institutions [the barebones Powerpoint presentation is available in English] — and (for several women’s groups) on “Effective Public Speaking” (Powerpoint in English and in Arabic). The Powerpoint presentation on “Basic Principles of Constitutional Democracy” was requested by a number of people (and I freely shared it via thumb drives) and is being distributed by members of the Transitional National Assembly to the full membership of the TNA, along with my outline on “Challenges of Democratization” and the bilingual edition of the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution that I arranged to produce.
Now, a few impressions. First, I did not travel that much, partly because the huge upsurge in terrorist violence coincided with my trip. It was difficult to meet with people and public advertisement of a talk by a foreigner on constitutional democracy was likely to prove a magnet for terrorists, thus endangering the people who might come to attend. Accordingly, I didn’t mix or mingle with lots of people and I have little insight into what “most Iraqis” think, beyond the evidently fairly reliable public opinion polling that is being undertaken in the country (and that is available to everyone else, as well). I do have the impression that the terrorists are certainly not popular in Iraq, that there is widespread hatred for them, and that whatever base of support they may have is extremely narrow. I was very impressed by the political sophistication that I sensed among Iraqis, who are very eager to follow up on the election of January and to press on to a constitution. The discussions I had at a number of venues demonstrated a seriousness of purpose and a grasp of the essentials of constitutionalism that I found very promising. Perhaps most interesting was the courage and sophistication among women. Associations of Iraqi business women show great promise and are working to deliver freedom and prosperity for women — and men, as well — through free enterprise.
The level of sophistication among academic economists was not as promising, but after decades of Soviet-style indoctrination and nationalist propaganda, that will take time. A serious problem, among both intellectuals and the public at large, is the mistaken perception that “Iraq is a rich country” and that all they need is “the right leadership” to be able to divide up the oil resources properly, or to ensure that they aren’t cheated by foreigners. The curse of oil has had a pernicious effect on the economy, politics, and intellectual life, as well. (See the discussion of the topic in Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.) My talk on the importance of institutions led some of the various professors to agree that “Yes, yes, we all agree that we need the institutional system, but you have to realize that Iraq is a rich country,” followed by various lists of resources (oil, land, water, people, sulfur, tourist attractions, and even that “Iraq is rich in civilization and in religious traditions”). Institutions matter and it will be very important for the work of, for example, Hernando de Soto, to be better understood.
I am moderately optimistic about the possibilities for Iraqi freedom, provided that the new government will be able to defeat the terrorists militarily. That will also require that more people show the courage (not merely the desire) to provide intelligence to the police and military. The television shows carried very well done advertisements about how to call in tips on suicide bombers, as well as televised confessions of captured terrorists, which demonstrate to the viewers that they’re not as impressive (or frightening) as they like to present themselves. I sincerely hope that the Iraqis are able to find and kill the dedicated terrorists and to dry up tacit support for the terrorist insurgency in the narrow pockets of Ba’athism and religious fanaticism. That will not be easy, since the terrorists have a great deal of money that they looted from the central bank and you can buy a lot of arms and support with so much cash. (I was shown the expensive bullets that the terrorists had recently started using: armor-piercing incendiary rounds that can go through the engine block of a car and kill the passengers.) Among the imaginative and impressive projects on which some Iraqi citizens I met are working is the “Iraq 2010” project, which will show what the country can be like in five years, based on projects already underway, if the terrorists are thwarted in their goal of maximum destruction. What the terrorists offer is…just more car bombs, more murders, more destuction; that’s it.
In any case, I expect to continue working with our Iraqi friends. Regardless of whether one opposed or supported the war, the decision was made and Saddam’s regime was overturned. The Iraqis now have a chance to put something much, much, much better in its place. The consequences for them, for their neighbors, and indeed for the whole world are too important not to help them.
P.S. My web master, P. J. Doland, gently reminded me of the mistakes I was making when trying to upload the PDF files. Oops. They should work now. Just a reminder of the many benefits of the division of labor.
The Potential of Iraq
Tom Palmer returns from Iraq and reports on the status of the country’s classical liberal movement. Dr. Palmer’s efforts are to be applauded; the promotion of liberty in transitional states is accompanied by the potential of great returns and the…
Very interesting account, and one of the most hopeful things I’ve read about Iraq.
A few questions:
1. Do you have any impressions as to the extent that hatred of the terrorists holds true for Sunni Iraqis? Is there enough support that Iraq may be heading for civil war?
2. Did you get any particular feedback on the presentations…what seemed to hit home, what didn’t (if anything)? And why?
3 (mostly rhetorical) Do the Iraqi academics make any real difference? If Iraq successfully becomes a peaceful country linked to the developed world, won’t the old academics soon be displaced by the new generation, as is happening in the former Soviet Union?
Anyway, what you’ve done (and continue to do) is great work!
Great work, Tom. I think the odds in Iraq are strongly against liberty, but this gives me some hope.
Tom, your “Basic Principles of Constitutional Democracy” should be required for every high school student in America. Come to think of it, there are probably a couple of Members of Congress that could stand to see it, too. 😉
Important job, very well done.
(I was shown the expensive bullets that the terrorists had recently started using: armor-piercing incendiary rounds that can go through the engine block of a car and kill the passengers.) And the question is…from whom did they get them…Not something the former Army of Iraq had.
NV
Tom, you say:
>
While we all hope you’re right, I have to wonder:
1. We hear on the news here of a large number of attacks and significant death tolls throughout Iraq in recent weeks.
2. I think it’s reasonable to assume that we don’t hear everything; that it’s even worse than we hear.
3. It is hard for me to imagine that this kind of carnage can persist for long periods of time without some degree of backing by a significant percentage of the populace. Multiple the carnage by 12 (to account for the population differences between Iraq and the US), and imagine that occuring in any major city in the US for weeks and months. Could that happen with no support among the American people living in those cities? The level of coordination required to keep doing this suggests, to me, otherwise.
Hoping you’re right,
Ross
Sorry: Tom’s quote did not come through in my comment above. It was:
“I sincerely hope the Iraqis are able to find and kill the dedicated terrorists and to dry up tacit support for the terrorist insurgency in the narrow pockets of Ba’athism and religious fanaticism.”
(Tom: Are you aware that when people put double diamond brackets around a passage, your software hides the passage?)
Further to Ross’s post, read Patrick Cockburn, The Independent correspondent in Iraq, whose frequent columns may be viewed at http://www.independent.co.uk. See also his “Baghdad Diary: A Week of Bombs and Blood” posted at: http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05062005.html For millions of ordinary Iraqis life is now more dangerous and impoverished than it was under Saddam.
Ross raises an important question. What percentage of the population supports the terrorists? The evidence is that it’s quite small, but greater than zero. The terrorists have access to tribal support (and have assassinated some tribal leaders who have opposed them) within a very narrow part of the population. Very little violence of that sort is taking place in the south, and very little in the north. (The recent suicide attacks on police and army recruits in Erbil are not evidence of any support within Erbil for the terrorists.) Most of it is happening in the “Sunni Triangle,” where whatever support the terrorists enjoy is concentrated. What will be necessary for a military victory against the terrorists will be to induce more among the Sunni population (and especially the tribal leaders who have great influence) to come out openly agains them. There is, of course, great danger to them in doing so and it is hardly foreordained that the new government will be successful in bringing that about.
It does not follow from the existence of some popular support (financed, by the way, by huge amounts of looted cash from the previous regime and substantially directed by Saddam’s old secret police apparatus) for the terrorists means that they can be characterized as a “popular uprising” against the government. Far from it. The evidence is that most Iraqis actively hate and fear the terrorists and are by no means happy to be subject to random bombings, assassinations, and all the rest. (The terrorists also are able to smuggle in ammunition from outside the country, as well as draw on the virtually inexhaustible supply of old artillery rounds and land mines from the previous regime to create their Improvised Explosive Devices.)
As to whether the case is worse than we hear, I sincerely doubt that. Compare the situation to that in Israel. Every time there is a bombing in Tel Aviv I hear about it and on a few occasions called friends in Israel to find out that they were alright. In fact, we do hear about the vast majority of the bombings. The numbers, if anything, are misleading on the side of overestimation of the size of the terrorist campaign. Consider that when numbers of dead are reported, they usually include the terrorists themselves, which is not what you would think when you read “[Number X] Killed in Insurgent Assault.” That is not to minimize the seriousness of the fear under which people live of being killed by a roadside bomb or by a suicide bomber. It’s quite real. But I do not believe that the attacks are being underreported. (In general, the U.S. military registers every attack, whether it’s a bullet whizzing past a patrol or a major car bomb; some of the attacks that are reported in the aggregate are quite minor.) Again, the terrorist campaign is a very serious matter, but I doubt that it is being underreported. (To the extent that it is being underreported, it is on the level of murders inter-communal murders of the sorts that have generated unidentified bodies in the Tigris. No one knows how many of those are being carried out or exactly what the occasions for the murders are.)
So, are the attacks being underreported? I doubt it, especially considering that the terrorists are generally quite willing to take credit for them. Further, the numbers of those killed that are reported typically include the attackers, themselves, so that it’s a somewhat misleading guide to the damage that they are inflicting. One source of harm is largely underreported, however, and that is the huge percentage of the male population that is spending much of their time guarding places. Residential blocks are organized to have guards at all of the entrances, standing by concrete blast barriers, checking vehicles, and raising and lowering tire puncturing barriers. It’s unwise to park your car someplace and just walk off if you aren’t known to the people there. The fear of criminals of all sorts, whether motivated by ideology or by the search for loot (or both) is made visible by the very large numbers of men stationed around neighborhoods, major buildings, and water, electricity, and sewage stations.
I cannot predict whether the Iraqi majority will be successful in defeating a very small minority, since that minority is well financed and quite dedicated to the utter destruction of any kind of social order, in the hope that a new order will arise from the ashes, whether the al Qaeda dream of a new Caliphate or a the Ba’athist dream of a new fascist state. But I hope that the majority is successful. And I think that they have a serious chance of it.
Mr. Brady recommends the writings of Patrick Cockburn, who paints a very dire picture. But Cockburn’s reporting is remarkably one sided. For example, quotes Ghassan Attiyah as a voice despair, although Attiyah is well known in Iraq for attempting to mediate among the communities and to create a stable government and communal reconciliation. He may not be a great optimist, but he is doing what he can to make a decent government possible.
There is an important question that Mr. Cockburn does not address. If millions are more impoverished now than before (and the data are not entirely clear on the matter), who is responsible for that? Are they impoverished because of the formation of a new government and the attempt to create a constitutional order, or because of the terrorist attacks on sewage treatment stations, petrol delivery trucks, police stations, water treatment facilities, and electricity generators and transmission substations, all designed to destroy the social order, to create maximum mayhem, and to build either a fascist or a theocratic state in Iraq? For whom or for what should decent people be rooting? Whom should they support?
“The terrorists also are able to smuggle in ammunition from outside the country,”
– meaning the borders are not safe.
“as well as draw on the virtually inexhaustible supply of old artillery rounds and land mines from the previous regime to create their Improvised Explosive Devices.”
Saddam’s “inexhaustible” supply of old artillery was located and counted. After Kuwait, The UN had an exact record, of what Saddam had and where. If the terrorists are now able to create improvised explosive devices, they can smuggle and create any other kind of devices…and we are not talking Molotov coktails here…
Re: land mines: By using them, terrorists also target their own population. The first victims being merely children, I cannot imagine how they can win the support of the population that way.
NV
TGP: “I cannot predict whether the Iraqi majority will be successful in defeating a very small minority, since that minority is well financed and quite dedicated to the utter destruction of any kind of social order, in the hope that a new order will arise from the ashes, whether the al Qaeda dream of a new Caliphate or a the Ba’athist dream of a new fascist state.”
Well, Tom’s been there and talked to people, to a degree in their own language. And I haven’t. So I take his opinion as credible.
Having said that, I have to wonder how many people are so committed to ideology–religious, Ba’athist, or otherwise–that they think in terms so dire as being “quite dedicated to the utter destruction of any kind of social order”. That is to say, to the killing of all they known and have known, to the utter destruction of anything they have lived through up to now.
One must wonder how Saddam managed to keep these powerful forces so under control that during his “watch” the number of murders in Baghdad was less per year than in many American cities.
Tom asks who is responsible; certainly those who blow up property and people are responsible for their actions. And those who invade an unthreatening country and destroy the social order are responsible for their actions. It’s not as if this sort of result weren’t imminently predictable.
An interesting set of comments.
First, it is indeed credible that there are some people so fanatical in their support of an ideology that they would kill millions to see it instantiated. I would recommend watching the movie “Der Untergang” (“Downfall”) for a portrayal of Joseph and Magda Goebbels, who poisoned their children because they could not allow them to grow up in a world without National Socialism. There was a great deal of fanatical destruction by the Third Reich. The same or at least a quite similar mentality seems evident in Iraq among the jihadis, who would deliberately create a civil war if they could, in the hope that the Shia and the Kurds would be eliminated and a new Caliphate established; in the case of the hard-core Ba’athists, they would rather destroy a society than not rule it and would prefer to rule over ruins and an impoverished population than live as equal citizens in a constitutional republic.
As to how Saddam kept “these powerful forces” under control, that’s not so hard to answer. First, he was a psychopath who knew no bounds to his cruelty. You can control a fairly well armed society if you’re willing to kill, not only your enemies, but their families, as well. Second, most of the organizers of the terrorist campaign are the ones who did the controlling under the old regime: the Ba’athist political officers and secret police officials. I posted a link to an interesting Washington Post piece that makes that point here:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/020907.php
Regarding the number of murders in Baghdad…it depends on how you count them. Most of Saddam’s murders took place outside of Baghdad, where the bodies could be dumped into mass graves. It’s true that a totalitarian state can often suppress free-lance crime more effectively than non-totalitarian successors, if only because the punishment they mete out is so brutal and total; such crime rose in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, too, but that was a concomitant of the population no longer being subjected to the organized criminality of a totalitarian state and not yet having organized other, law-governed means of suppressing violence. Iraq was not, in fact, an especially peaceful country under Saddam; far from it.
There’s no doubt that what we are witnessing would not be happening had the U.S., the U.K, and their allies not invaded. That’s pretty obvious. The invasion did happen; the terrorist campaign is one consequence of that invasion. At this point, we face a serious question: should we (as persons who value peace, toleration, and freedom, not necessarily as citizens who may influence state action) root for and support the people who are blowing up electricity generators and peaceful worshipers and shoppers, or should we root for and support the people who are fighting against the bombers and who are trying to establish a constitutional democracy with freedom of religion, freedom of speech (which the press in Iraq demonstrates every day), freedom of trade, and limits on the powers of the authorities? I don’t find that question to be a difficult one.
Tom, responding to my post, says:
“it is indeed credible that there are some people so fanatical in their support of an ideology that they would kill millions to see it instantiated” and then references the Goebbels.”
I was unclear. Certainly those masterminding major institutions can be ideologically fanatical. But I’ve never thought the masses were that way. I don’t, for instance, think most members of the German military in WWII had any strong desire to round up and kill millions of Jews. Rather, I think they were lied to and fear-mongering techniques were effectively used, much like happens in the United States and democratic countries today. That it is so easily done is one reason I’m so pessimistic about the future of liberty.
Tom also adds:
:There’s no doubt that what we are witnessing would not be happening had the U.S., the U.K, and their allies not invaded. That’s pretty obvious. The invasion did happen; the terrorist campaign is one consequence of that invasion. At this point, we face a serious question: should we (as persons who value peace, toleration, and freedom, not necessarily as citizens who may influence state action) root for and support the people who are blowing up electricity generators and peaceful worshipers and shoppers, or should we root for and support the people who are fighting against the bombers and who are trying to establish a constitutional democracy with freedom of religion, freedom of speech (which the press in Iraq demonstrates every day), freedom of trade, and limits on the powers of the authorities? I don’t find that question to be a difficult one.”
I disagree with Tom that this is a serious question. What nuts would be in favor of the terrorists and against the success of a liberal democracy? Of course, being in favor of X and thinking it unlikely that X will occur need not be contradictory. It is also a fair question as to whether or not the continued US military presence improves or lessens the likelihood of liberty succeeding in Iraq. I agree with Chris Preble’s position, in Cato’s Exiting Iraq, IIRC, to the effect that the US should have pulled out at the time of the January elections.
The poster above is probably right about whether “the masses” are so self-destructive. But what’s happening in Iraq is definitely not about any action by “the masses.” It’s a very small number of highly dedicated fanatics who hope to seize power after all other kinds of authority and order are eliminated. What we’re witnessing is not a “popular uprising,” but to a great extent an organized campaign by the former Ba’athist rulers and enforcers to smash up the society and government so that they can rebuild their tyranny from the ashes.
I can assure you that there is no shortage of people in the U.S. and Europe who cheer on “the resistance” and who hope for the defeat of the Iraqi government.
The timing of military disengagement is an important one; I think that the commitment to stay until the elections was important to the success of those elections and the big question now is how much longer they should stay. (I certainly don’t favor a perpetual presence.)
It seems Tom and I hold much in common in assessing the Iraq situation, but differ on assessing the following probability:
I understand last week, admittedly a particularly bloody week, more than 300 people were killed in Iraq, most in Baghdad, mostly innocent civilians. The USA has a population 12 times that of Iraq. My belief is that if 3600 people were killed in the USA last week, mostly in one of our largest cities, and that this sort of thing had been happening for months and there was no reason not to expect it to happen for many more months, I would have trouble believing government reports to the effect it was due to “a very small number of highly dedicated fanatics” who were widely opposed by the masses.
That is not to say such a claim is necessarily untrue, merely that it is not immediately credible. Do not former Saddam henchmen and Ba’athist fanatics have friends and relatives who are appalled by the bloodshed, know who is responsible, and who can with relative safety turn them in (as the Unibomber’s brother turned him in)? Or has the social order so deteriorated since the US invasion that such a method is no longer easily available?
My apologies for not signing my last post.
Ross
A libertarian in Iraq
Tom G. Palmer went to Iraq to promote classical liberal thinking. Read about his goals and accomplishments here….
Classical liberal Iraq
Tom Palmer is a sensible libertarian hawk who recently went to Iraq to lecture on libertarian ideas. Here is one of his PowerPoint presentations. Among his impressions:. . . a lecture and Powerpoint presentation on the process of writing an…
The VRWC blog roundup
Scott just started a new community blog for Republicans and fellow travellers in the NYC Metro area: Urban Elephants. Check it out. These items are older but worth reading: The Quick And Dirty Leftist’s Guide To Arguing Against The War…