Hindsight is always 20/20 or better, especially in war, or in any difficult endeavor.
In retrospect, it may indeed have proven a wiser and more effective course to retain as much as possible of the old Iraqi military, police, and civil bureacracy, as was done in Japan after WWII.
Unlike Japan, however, those institutions in Iraq did not so much “cement” the population, with the notable exception of course of the Sunni Baathist minority.
For the vast majority, of Shia and Kurds, the existing structures “held things together” mostly through oppressive force, brutality, and intimidation.
In the aftermath, the daunting task of “vetting” existing officials, in order to weed out the ones who retained loyalties to the old regime and the old ideologies, led to the decision to simply “fire everyone”, and start over by taking applications.
It would have been like keeping the Nazis in charge of the concentration camps after taking Berlin, on the basis that “they” at least knew how to run the camps, and would keep the prisoners from running amuck.
Even then as we have seen, there have been many successful infiltrations of the Iraqi bureacracy and security forces by those whose loyalties and intents are not at all compatible with the formation of a new democratic Iraqi republic.
In spite of this, we did not seek to eliminate Islam, or the various factional elements within Iraq. The Iraqi government has a distinctly parliamentary rahter than congressional form, with a Prime Minister in the lead and a less-powerful President. With the exception of the Baathist party, and former Baathist officials, great efforts were made to bring everyone to the table, including the virulently anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia.
Another enormous difference with the experience of post-war Japan, was the absence then of any major agitating outside regime, such as exists now with Iran, whose political and ideological aspirations and goals are not compatible with the peaceful establishment of a pro-Western, democratic republic on it’s doorstep, in the region that it seeks to itself control under a hegemony of authoritarian Islamism.
Clearly, this difference is significant, as the presence of a major state interjecting deliberately destabilizing influences has been a key part of most of the ongoing violence, including the incitement of inter-sectarian rivalries and violence.
Also present in Japanese culture, was an unquestioning obedence to the divine authority of the Emperor, who himself directed and announced their surrender, in order to prevent any further destruction to his people, and to Japan.
There is no similar cultural correlation for the Iraqi’s. Saddam did not call upon his people to lay down their arms and accept defeat. Quite the contrary.
And even if he had, the higher religious and ideological mandate of radical Islam, endlessly repeated by many radical clerics and Imam’s, is to “fight the infidel occupiers”, and engage in a jihad for the establishment of an Islamic hegemony.
In spite of this, a great many secular and moderate Iraqi’s still remarkably look to the United States as a shining example, and wholly support the establishment of a secular democratic republic and capitalistic free-market economy, that co-exists with a more spiritual expression of Islamic faith and culture.
Another issue that has been raised has been the alleged inadequacy of the military force that was provided in the initial stages of the occupation and reconstruction.
Again, given the clarity of hindsight, perhaps one might have chosen to proceed in a quite different manner.
At the time however, a smaller, more technological and less intrusive force was thought to be sufficient and more desirable, especially given the emotional aversion that modern Americans exhibit for any level of troop casualties.
More troops means more exposure to possible casualty, if only through accident. After the invasion, more troops died in accidents, than had died in combat in the actual war.
It was also specifically desired to NOT appear to be an outside “occupying force”, given the sense of pride of the Iraqi population and Arab culture, and given the intention to as quickly as possible turn the functioning of a new government back over to the Iraqi’s themselves.
Past conflicts, even those we have not given up on and have prevailed in, have more often than not been as notable by their mistakes and omissions, as by their successes – and ultimate victory has more often been achieved more in spite of those mistakes, mis-steps, and mis-judgements, than because of any sort of “perfect planning” and execution.
It has been pointed out in the past that the D-Day invasions that shifted the momentum of the war against the German Nazis, and in favor of the Allied forces, was in many cases a complete disaster – a bloodbath of errors and misfortune that cost the lives of well over 10,000 American and Allied troops on the beaches of Normandy in the course of a single day.
The difference, it has been pointed out, was that the media and political structures of the day chose to cast the effort as not simply a “blundering bloodbath”, but instead as a “heroic” one. Victories, although sometimes small, were emphasized and celebrated, and the focus was on a dogged “we must win, we are winning, and we WILL win”.
Contrast that to the voices of doom and defeat in both the Congress and the media today, who constantly harp on and parrot the mantra, that not only WILL we lose and fail, but that we already HAVE.
Perhaps one problem is that many Americans particularly, no longer believe in or have a clear understanding of the ideological differences that distinguish the American political, economic, and social culture from those found in the rest of the “old world”, and no longer consider such values worth defending or “fighting” for.
Instead, many view such considerations as somehow having “relative” (or irrelevant) moral and ethical significance – that somehow the ideology of liberty and freedom is unworthy of being championed and supported in the face of oppression and intimidation – and that even if it is, that somehow “they” are intrinsicly incapable of understanding or adapting such an idealistic paradigm, and should instead be abandoned to fight it out amongst themselves, sink or swim.
Is this a difficult fight? Yes, it is. Have things happened that in retrospect could have been handled better? No doubt.
But should we now quit, and give up?
If you are a liberal Democrat of today, with an eye on achieving electoral victory by convincing as many of the pliable peasantry as possible that our failure in Iraq and everything else bad that happens in the world and at home is the result of incompetent bungling by your Republican political opponents, then the answer is, and has been, clearly a resounding “Yes! and the faster, the better!”
There are still those however of more sober judgement, who understand that in spite of a certain “learning curve” that exists in any endeavor of value – that to quit at this point, to throw up one’s hands and walk (or run) away from the challenges we face, in Iraq or elsewhere, will not answer or resolve the more over-arching problem and challenge of those ideologies of authoritarian oppression, that have always sought to oppose and overwhelm those who seek to live in a paradigm of liberty and individual freedom.
“But the polls say …”, and “The American people have demanded change!”
The simple fact of the matter is, that roughly 20% to 30% are to any degree serious “true believers” of a liberal socialistic paradigm. Another 20% to 30% are sincere and well-grounded in their understanding of libertarian conservatism and free markets. In play are the vast majority of those in the middle, who simply “lean” one way or the other, if they pause to care at all.
Most people have no real ideology, but simply accomodate themselves to whatever they perceive to be the prevailing sense of success of one view or another, at any given time.
Most people want to be associated with perceptions of success and winning. They are the “fair-weather fans” of politics and society. “Hurray for our team!” – whichever team is (or appears to be) in the lead.
Which ideals are you for?
