the hard decisions

[sophiaserpentia]

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Tuesday he favors removing most American troops from the Baghdad area and southern Iraq while maintaining a smaller security force in northern Iraq for a limited period.

Vilsack, who announced last week he would seek the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said Iraq may have to endure a period of heavy violence following an American troop redeployment, but that it was the only way to force the Iraqi government to make the hard decisions about restoring order to the fractured country.

"It's tough love, no question about it," Vilsack told The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview. "It may very well require them to go through some chaotic and very difficult times for them to finally decide it is not in their interest to continue down that road."

... Vilsack called the continued presence of American troops in Iraq "both a crutch and an excuse," delaying the Iraqi government from seizing control of the country and tamping down the sectarian violence.

from Vilsack wants smaller U.S. force in Iraq (emphasis added)

This is basically the mainstream view taking form among our politicians, so this is not so much a knock against Vilsack, with whom i am barely acquainted but already beginning to dislike, so much as it is about the attitudes and unspoken assumptions that underline our country's approach to war, politics, and power.

"Going through some chaotic and very difficult times" sounds eerily similar to Bush's comment about the Iraqi people "tolerating" a remarkable level of violence in the aftermath of the invasion.

He thinks they're going to see worse than they're seeing now? The UN is already saying that torture in Iraq now is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein, which is astounding and chilling to contemplate. It's worse than it was when Uday had free reign to put people in wood chippers feet first?

In this view, chaos (IOW, civil war) will rage unabated until the Iraqi government makes "the hard decisions" which will bring about the cessation of violence. NOT the people of Iraq -- you know, the ones who are burying their children -- but the government. Because, unspoken assumption here: peace comes when rulers impose it. Not from neighbors of different ethnicities and sects who talk and work together and shop at the market together and help each other rebuild after bad weather. Not from parents who want to protect their children.

"The hard decisions" is a codeword which means the US government's idea of victory in Iraq now is for another dictator to take over and impose "peace" through violence, intimidation, and strongarming. So basically, Vilsack's proposal boils down to: "We're going to step aside and covertly support the most promising dictator who comes along. We'll ask the media to kindly refrain from posting about the human rights violations of the new regime during the 'transitional period.'"

Comments

You Should Take A Look...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

...at the latest edition of The New Republic, which offers the full spectrum of views regarding how we might extricate ourselves from Iraq. What is clear from almost all the accounts by the "experts" is that too many influential elements of Iraqi society WANT a sectarian civil war and have been spoiling for one for centuries. In fact, the only elements who DO NOT want such a struggle-to-the-death are corporate or business interests who are associated with oil. Saddam Hussein staved this off and was actually GOOD for the stability of the region, and by removing him WE unleashed chaos.
My opinion is that the only leverage we have left is to threaten to withdraw over the period of a scheduled timetable. And we MUST MEAN IT, when we make this threat. It is not in the interests of Iran, Syria or Russia for us to withdraw precipitously, but they are the powers who can help us impose a political solution. That "political solution" MUST put a priority on protecting the West from the conflagration in the Middle East which is inevitable, in some form or other. Example: we may have to side with the Shiites and allow them to dismember the fairly vicious, intractable Sunni population, who want to continue to dominate the oil industry of the country, despite their minority status. On the other hand, it may be most useful to force a settlement that includes a continuing controling interest for the Sunnis in the oil industry there DESPITE their minority status. The only thing that can matter is the balance of power in the region, so that we can continue to extract the petroleum that our society depends upon, until we find alternatives.
Please don't be too condescending, too sympathetic regarding the Iraqis. They are mostly a bloodthirsty, fanatical and barbaric people who are eager to kill each other and us for sectarian religious reasons. They generally got the government they deserved, which was, for a long time, that of Saddam Hussein.
I think that, if the only purpose of the invasion had been to decapitate the Saddam Hussein region and then get out, the long-drawn-out and genocidal civil war that is now going on would have never taken place; there would have been, instead, a much shorter but equally bloody struggle for power that fundamentalists Shiites would have won and would have promptly aligned Iraq with Iran, and that THAT would have been preferable to what we're incurring now.

Re: You Should Take A Look...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I've seen suggestions that an all-out war between Shiites and Sunnis could come out of this. It's not necessarily at that point yet, but if the conflict lingers much longer i think there's a real chance it could spread.


Please don't be too condescending, too sympathetic regarding the Iraqis. They are mostly a bloodthirsty, fanatical and barbaric people who are eager to kill each other and us for sectarian religious reasons.

I subscribe to a basically Marxian view of human nature, which is that most people are not naturally inclined to hate their neighbors and want to get along mostly peaceably. In this view, hatred results from (a) unresolved anger stemming from classist, racist, sexist oppression which (b) is aimed at scapegoats ("the dirty ungodly heathens responsible for your pain!") by hawkish agitators and demagogues. I've never been to Iraq, but i suspect the average Iraqi is no more bloodthirsty, fanatical, or barbaric than the average American.

I suppose this view of human nature could be wrong, but i don't like to think of the consequences of presuming that members of any particular ethnic group are more inclined to barbarity than others.

Re: You Should Take A Look...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

i don't like to think of the consequences of presuming that members of any particular ethnic group are more inclined to barbarity than others.

Members of a certain ethnic group or a certain sect certainly need not be, I completely agree with you. However, people of a certain terrible historical experience definitely are, and these people's experiences have been inexpressibly horrendous.