Sunday, May 06, 2007

if their agenda is to create a failed state

"When our tanks rolled into Baghdad we could have found the least-bad official of the old regime, accepted his surrender, and let him run a transitional government. Instead of eviscerating the Iraqi police and military and putting the US government in charge of security on the ground, we could have let the transitional government do that from day 1. After all, militaries are really for fighting, not for maintaining order among civilian populations. If we had kept that in mind, and let the Iraqis handle their security from day 1, the security situation probably wouldn’t have deteriorated nearly as much, because (as last night, Hayekian perspective) security would have been provided by people with local expertise, rather than outsiders answering to far-off planners.

The role of US forces, then, would have been to keep a watch on the transitional government while it hands over criminals of the old regime, submits to weapons inspections (the ostensible root of the conflict), convenes a constitutional convention to chart a new course, and negotiates a treaty with the US.

Those are the sorts of things that you do if your real goal is to remove a government that allegedly threatens you: You get rid of that government, and then put the locals in charge of their own affairs again ASAP. Hell, even if your real goal is to create a client state, you still do that, only you work behind the scenes to manipulate the transitional government and constitutional convention. There’s no need to eviscerate the entire apparatus of the state and put everything under the control of the US.

Thinking about all of this with my friend has left me wondering one thing: Why the hell didn’t we do it that way? I know that it was never really about removing an alleged threat, but even the creation of a client state doesn’t require all of the havoc that we’ve sown. So why, in God’s name, didn’t we do what I outlined above? I admit that I’m completely confused here, the more that I think about it. This doesn’t create a client state, it creates a failed state, another Afghanistan or Somalia.
Anyway, I know it’s too late to fix this now, but the more I think about it the more I realize that they didn’t just make mistakes. They worked over-time to make mistakes, mistakes that would have been completely unnecessary even for people with imperalist agendas. I can understand when people do bad things that advance their bad goals. I can understand when people make mistakes while doing things that, if successful, would have advanced their goals. What I can’t understand is going out of your way to do things that, even if successful, would have been completely irrelevant to the goals at hand. So I’m stumped here.

(Since my opinions sometimes get misunderstood here, I’m not thinking through the “How to do a better invasion and occupation?” issue because I want to do it again, but because (1) I suspect that some day our leaders will try to do it again and (2) if their agenda is to create a failed state rather than a client state, these will be the signs.)"


Anonymous said...

Trust me on this.

A democratic whole Iraq was not what "they wanted. That was what
"they" fed to Bush...and he fell for it.

What "they wanted was an Iraq divided into three seperate "states"..broken up, including oil resources..hence no threat. The Cheney-Neo-Lukid plan as far back as 2001.

Iran would already be rubble if not for the fact that "they"
underestimated the Iraq opposition and convinced George and idiot Rumsfeld it could be done on the cheap.

Iraq was to be a pit stop on the way to Iran, now it is a tar pit.

But the neo's haven't stopped, they have done everything to make Bush attack Iran except hold a gun to his head...that may be next.

lukery said...


in fact A Clean Break dates back to 1996...

i'm still trying to put Perle & Feith in prison...

starroute said...

Actually, in this case I'd be willing to concede that a fair number of them were merely acting out their impractical utopian dreams. The creative destruction guys and the free market ideologues both saw Iraq as a test case, one where they could sweep away the old state entirely and create a new, minimalist, Norquistian republic-on-the-Tigris.

Much like what Jack Abramoff wanted to do in the Marianas, only with an even freer hand and a blanker canvas. An entire Emerald City full of starry-eyed youngsters lacking the sense God gave a goose.

You don't fail that hard just by neglect, or even by malevolence. It takes determined but utterly wrong-headed idealism to be quite that careless and that un-self-critical.

noise said...

Wolfowitz, Hadley and Tenet all knew the WMD case was a marketing vehicle. (1) (2) (3)

Bush discussed a false flag attack at one point...painting a plane in UN colors, shooting it down and blaming Hussein. Cummings article discusses the prospect of using human rights violations as the justification.

IMO, this means the people in power were going to war. End of story. They would have come up with another justification if WMD wasn't sufficient. It seems WMD or no WMD is a distraction from the real issue...the US government was determined to invade Iraq.

If the pretext was this deceitful what about the actual invasion/occupation plan?

Antonia Juhasz wrote about the economic agenda in her book. Then we have the mercenaries who aren't in the chain of command. We have L. Paul Bremer...Kissinger protege. We have the British commandos who were arrested dressed in insurgent garb, later released from an Iraqi jail by a British raid. The usual...not enough troops, disbanding the Iraqi army, debaathification, lack of electricity and clean water and torture.

It may turn out that the real plan is more sinister than we can imagine. In a recent interview (with TruthDig) Karen Kwiatkowski reminds us that Gen. Garner said shortly after the invasion that US troops would be in Iraq for about 20-30 years. Suggesting the permanent bases weren't meant just for Republican Presidents.

Kax said...

I don't know which is worse,,,, thinking of Captain Ahab and crew as complete pompous idiots or diabolical power fiends.

If NeoNutzis have their way, there will only be Repugnican presidents to use those permanent bases.