Per Max's suggestion. A continuation of the debate under the comments section in "Extraordinary Rendition My Ass". Part One.
Max: “If President Bush had said two years ago that we would invade Iraq, defeat their army, depose Saddam, and hold free elections while losing fewer than 2,000 American soldiers and 20,000 Iraqi civilians you would have called bullshit.”
So I should “call my shots,” eh? Uh, no. I am not conducting a war and I don’t feel obligated to look into my crystal ball to predict casualty counts, etc. But let’s go through your list anyway.
On what would I have called bullshit exactly? The fact that the US army would whup the Iraqi Army? No. The death numbers? First of all, last time I checked, the war was still going on, racking up body counts in the dozens each day. Second of all, you low ball the Iraqi death count by some 80,000, possible less, possibly substantially more. Point here is that I never made predictions of a body count. It’s higher than it had to have been as a direct result of Bush administration policy. Full stop. The elections – witnessing a Sunni boycott and an electorate who didn’t even know the names of the people they were voting for, don’t qualify for the definition of “free elections.” See Juan Cole on this:
"The electorate had no idea for whom they were voting, since the candidates' names were secret until the last moment. The Sunni Arabs boycotted or were prevented from voting by the ongoing guerrilla war, which started right back up after the ban on traffic lapsed."
Max: “Bush called Afghanstan (a country that England and the USSR at the heights of their power both failed to conquer), he called Iraq, he called the idea of democracy in the middle east (which is no small feat), he called the idea that democratizing Iraq would pressure other arab countries (and Iran) to do likewise, he called the idea of isolating Arafat instead of feteing him. Surprise: Saudi Arabia holds municipal elections, Egypt is considering doing likewise, the palistinians hold a reasonable election, Libya hands over its nascent nuclear program, Syria appears set to leave Lebanon, and Afghanistan and Iraq hold their first ever free and fair democratic elections.”
Couple things here:
A) Bush “called Iraq”? Hold on, let me let that sink in. Bush “called Iraq.” Do you want to take that one back? Seriously. Bush called a massive weapons program, then deployed his surrogates to scare the shit out of the American public, including the infamous “mushroom cloud” quote from his National Security Advisor. Called Iraq? He and his administration deliberately lowballed estimates on the money, troops, and time this war would require? Called Iraq? Do you remember the “unmanned drone” allegations? Tony Blair’s 45 minutes? Al-Qaeda connections? Called Iraq? I don’t remember him “calling” that this was a war for democracy. I wonder what his missed shots look like.
B) I’ll repeat one of my claims here. Efforts to credit Bush for everything good under the sun in the Middle East are DELUSIONAL. Bush’s Israel/Palestine policy for three years consisted of, “You guys fight it out, I’ll be on the ranch.” Then Arafat dies, there’s so rumbling about working with the new guy….and Bush was responsible all along! Wow! This guy had the most hands off policy towards that conflict among any US president in the past thirty years. And yet….Iraq was somehow responsible for post-Arafat elections?
C) Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren’t doing anything anytime soon. Note here, I’ve always thought it unfair to bludgeon Bush with Saudi Arabia’s corruption. Yeah, I know their families are tight, and yes, Old Bush’s Carlyle contracts reek of conflict of interest, but that’s a separate issue. It’s repressive government has been a US ally under every president back to Eisenhower for various reasons, some of them good. Anyway…democracies those two places ain’t
D) Syria….that shot you called there looks pretty bad this week doesn’t it? And somehow…after half a million people rally in FAVOR of Syria this week in Beirut, I don’t see the National Review getting all misty eyed over democracy and David Brooks writing paens to our conservative “visionaries.” I guess, democracy is something to be trumpeted when it coincides with US interests.
E) Libya – Hooray. The US found all that mustard gas on the turkey farm. Except, that story turned out to be mostly bunk also. Turns out, that country didn’t really have shit, and thought it wise to make a big show of giving up “their program.” Shrewd move on their part. Actually, it’s a win-win. Libya gets renewed trade and conservative propagandists in the US get to trumpet Libya as example A in their Reverse Domino Theory.
Now, importantly, your main point, the Reverse Domino Theory part with the All Good Things In Mideast Began with Bush corollary only *slightly* ignores and dimisses homegrown middle eastern political movements. In the US conservative cartoon view of the world, the Lebanese saw a semi-free (yeah, semi-free is better than not at all free) election in Iraq and decided, “Huh! George Bush and his talk of freedom really resonated with me. I am inspired by his actions!” Buulllllshiiit. There have been democracy movements in places like Lebanon…and Egypt…and Iran for years! Here's Juan Cole again.
"The Lebanese have been having often lively parliamentary election campaigns for decades. The idea that the urbane and sophisticated Beirutis had anything to learn from the Jan. 30 process in Iraq is absurd on the face of it. Elections were already scheduled in Lebanon for later this spring."
I know you know this. I also think that you know that internal political changes, i.e. stuff that has nothing to do with Iraq, has been responsible for whatever recent political events we’ve seen in the region recently.
Posted by mike at March 10, 2005 07:16 PMYou must learn to love George W. He emancipated Iraq. He banished the Taliban. He saved America from Eurasian terrorists. He invented both electricity and the heimlich maneuver, improving our quality of life in immeasurable ways. In his spare time, he perfected the keg-stand and made cheerleading masculine again. He was our first, only, and best president.
Posted by: O'Brien on March 12, 2005 09:14 PMGlad you responded. I am enjoying this discussion.
On calling your shots my point is this: before the war started there were many on the left including Noam Chomsky who were talking about 20,000 to 50,000 dead Americans, over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the initial battle, and the possibility of our troops being exposed to chemical weapons. I seem to remember Chomsky also talking about millions of refugees and the starvation and disease problems it would create. Leaving aside the question of how we were going to get attacked by chemical weapons that liberals are now claiming they knew didn't exist, the fundimental issue remains: all of these estimates were way off the mark. And they formed the framework for building opposition to the war. In other words, if some trusted oracle had a crystal ball and said here is where we will be in 2 years, the anti-war position would have been weaker than it already appeared at the time (in terms of public support).
By not fessing up to this, the anti-war and/or anti-Bush crowd has effectively moved the goalposts. With all the appropriate caveats, 1500 dead is nothing. We can go 65 years at that death rate before we hit the number projected prior to the war.
You say Americans are "racking up body counts in the dozens each day". Well, we have about 1500 dead over two years. That roughs out to about 2 dead per day, not "dozens each day". Dozens each day would be over 17,000 dead which, again, would still be on the low side of predictions that were so drastically off the mark.
Your civilian death count projection is incomprehensable. Even anti-war.org has the death count between 16,000 and 18,000. I highballed the number for your sake. These numbers are taken from actual reported deaths, so unless 80,000 families never reported the death of a family member and never had him officially buried, I think we can dispose of this one. The 100,000 number was from a Lancet poll so riddled with errors a first year polling methodology student would laugh it off. It was a survey of 998 people extrapolated to the entire country. It asked if someone in your family had died. Ignoring the possibility of grotesque lying, we also face the fact that it didn't distinguish civilian from military deaths. That alone makes it worthless. Then add in cross reporting and extended families and the poll is nonsense. The brilliant part about it is we have two possible metrics: actual deaths and a half assed survey. You have chosen the half ass survey because it makes the United States look bad.
My point is that not only is it fantasitcally lower than it could have been (and would have been with any other army in the world), but also that the civilian death rate in the middle of a war with Iraq was actually just about on a par with the number of civilians that Saddam killed every year on average. Oh, and keep in mind that civilian casualties over the last year and moving forward are more often than not the result of suiicide bombers and other assorted bad guys. But, we'll count those against us 'cause we started the fight and that seems fair.
Body counts of Iraqi civilians are "higher than it had to have been as a direct result of Bush administration policy. Full stop." Well, it is on the order of 20 to 25% of what you believe, but let’s say even that is higher than it had to have been. How about explaining how? Tell me what Tolles policies would have lowered the civilian body count even lower than 17,000. I am reminded of Tony LaRussa haters who bad mouth him after every loss. When you ask them what they would have done differently, they tell you they would have pulled the pitcher after the Xth inning (a completely retrospective move that they did not mention during the game). Then, they justify their hatred by pointing out that they knew the Cardinals were going to lose. The Cardinals lost, therefore the haters are right about LaRussa. It is much more impressive (and much more likely to be taken seriously) if instead they said before the game or even during the game at what point the pitcher should be pulled.
On the Sunni boycott: imagine that white south africans had boycotted the first post-apartheid elections. Would that invalidate them in your mind? The minority group that had held a despotic power over the majority didn't want to see an open vote. I understand that. I just don't see why we should allow them to decide if the vote is legitimate. I don't see much in this argument.
They didn't know the candidate's names until just before the election. Hmm. I remember seeing lists printed several days before. But, let's grant that several days is not enough time. It was a *referendum*. They were voting for lists of parties and platforms. They were voting for groups, clans, etc. They were VOTING. The individual names were not critical. This type of election is not uncommon and Cole knows it. He is relying on the ignorance of Americans (who are not used to referendums or non-first-past-the-post systems) when he makes this argument. I not only don't find this points compelling; I think it is shameful that Cole has used it at all.
On to your list:
A)Invading Iraq was an overidentified model. There were maybe a dozen good reasons, any one of which could have stood alone. Combined, the case was pretty strong. The Bush Administration chose to argue to the world that Iraq was in flagrant violation of the UN Resolutions. They chose to argue at home that he had a WMD program. The first argument is beyond dispute. That the UN chose not to act on it is not surprising given their fecklessness combined with the fantastic levels of corruption that are now coming to light. The second arguemtn seems to have been largely confirmed by the NYTimes this week in a piece that outlined how the WMD program existed at over 90 sites and was systematically dismantled prior and during the war. Liberals alternately want to believe that Saddam had them and would use them against our troops (an original justification for not going to war), that it was clear that he didn't have them and Bush lied us into war (for the past year and a half), and now that he did have them and it is Bush's fault that they were all stolen. Huddle up, decide which of these mutually contridictory positions you want, then stick with it.
Wasn't an unmanned drone found? Didn't Blair say if the drone were on a ship out at sea it could strike in 45 minutes? Isn't that true? Public policy is sometimes forced to deal with most likely scenerios and sometimes with worst case scenerios. I don't have a problem with having our defense policy based on worst case scenerios. You don't seem to have a problem with our environmental policies being based on worst case scenerios. That's fair. We disagree there. On Al Queda connections to Iraq: this is actually pretty firmly established. The 9/11 commission moved the goalposts by declaring there was not a "collaberative relationship", but the fundimental question was "were there connections?" The answer to that is yes. Here is a good link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B.
Remember also that there are other terror groups besides Al Queda and Iraq was not a just a revenge war but was both retrospective and prospective. Iraq trained and supported other terrorist groups including openly funding terrorist attacks on Israel. Oh yeah, and harboring terrorists and mass murderers like Idi Amin and Abu Abbas.
...and shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and (in a legal sense) creating a state of war by not complying with the UN resolutions, and attempting to assassinate one of our former leaders. Need I go on?
When I say he called Iraq, I mean that he called that we could topple the government quickly (which we did), that the people there yearned for freedom (which they have and continue to demonstrate), that this act would lead to a domino effect in the middle east (which you would now like to deny), and that it would help reduce terrorism (which it has both by eliminating a benefactor and by forcing terrorists to focus their attention on our troops rather than on US and other civilians.)
On the broader point, I think you need to check in with your cabal. In the last week or so, The Guardian, The Independent, Der Speigal, Le Monde, Time magazine, the NYTimes and others have all run sizable articles wondering "Was Bush Right?".
B) Israel-Palestine: Well, Bush's policy was far from "figure it out, I'll be on the farm". Let's see: he openly called for a palistinian state. If he did nothing else, this is huge. The Israelis were not amused. Then he clearly tied it to the palistinians getting their shit together. This put enormous pressure on Arafat who profited much more from war and terrorism than he would from peacefully settling the issue. Then he pretty openly repudiated Arafat and refused to meet with him. You can read this as "hands off". In fact, he was sending a message that he wasn't interested in dealing with this man. Arafat spent the last 2 years of his life trying to win an internal power struggle. Some of the forces he was fighting against were emboldened by Arafat's loss of world stature. Israel, on the other hand, found itself being clearly told to give up the settlements. Not "please consider it if the palistinians do A, B, and C", just do it. In one sense this is all pretty hands off; in another sense both sides knew Bush wasn't kidding when he asked for something. His follow through on Afghanistan and Iraq both showed the international community that Bush is deadly serious about dealing with these issues. Oh yeah, and denied the palistinian terrorists a major source of funding.
Is he totally responsible for everything that happened? Of course not. Did I say he was? Would we be where we are today in without Bush. Not a chance.
C) Saudi Arabia actually held open provincial elections for the first time ever. Free and fair? Probably not. But part of the point is that they are feeling pressure from their people and from us to make a show of being democratic. You state that they aren't doing anything soon. They already have. It is not huge, it is not irreversible, but it is a step in the right direction. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has openly declared there will be multi-party secret ballot elections. OK, they haven't happened yet and who knows what the future holds, but their president for life feels pressure to make a nod towards democracy. I wonder why? Probably just some totally random occurance. Certainly I can't think of any particular reason why he would make such an announcement. Probably due to the influence of the French and Germans, no?
Mike, do you even have an alternative theory that explains these events without the actions we have taken in the last 3 years? Honestly, I can't even make up a story that doesn't credit President Bush with the positive movement here. Snark away that "democracies those two places ain't" (and let’s add Saudi Arabia). But what kind of argument is that? No, they aren't, and they won't be if we pull out all of our troops, declare the war on terror won, and go home. But that is largely the policy of the anti-war left.
D) Syria: ooops. Part of the problem of rabid partisanship and looking at events in real time is you get your ass bit sometimes. To recap: following the assassination of their leader (likely by Syria) over 100,000 Lebanese took to the streets to protest Syria's occupation. In and of itself this is a huge positive event. It showed middle-easterners marching against their government. It also showed, Druze, Christian, Muslims and others uniting behind a cause. I thought it a good sign.
Several days later about 500,000 Muslims marched in favor of Syria's occupation. I take it that you saw it as a good sign because it seemed to weaken Bush (I say this since you can't seem to bring yourself to comment favorably on the original march, but whip out the countermarch to attack a point of mine. Maybe you are, in fact, heartbroken over it, but that is hard to see.) Back to the point: actually, I think that it was a good sign that Syria felt the need to stage a public rally to influence opinion to their side. Rather than busting skulls and imprisoning everyone as Iran does frequently. Even the radical Muslim groups and terrorist groups like Hezballah understand that the dictatorships are crumbling and the future is about people power.
Also, note that Hezballah flew the Lebanese and Syrian flags rather than their attractive fist clenched around an AK-47 flag. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Also note that there were few, if any, women there. Some reports suggest none; others suggest they were segregated from the men for religious reasons. Either way, note it. One side is marching for freedom, more equality, and democracy. The other is marching for forced oppression. Also note that over half the crowd was reported to be Syrians and Palistinians bussed in by Syria. This was not Lebanese marching for Syrian occupation.
I'm not going to give you shit about the counter-counter demonstration with estimates of over 1,000,000 attending. I assume you have the integrity to point it out and deal with it as I have with the counter-demonstration.
Back to the question of "Does Bush deserve credit for this". I assume your theory is: no, this is a direct effect of the Hariri assassination and little more. Fair. At least there is a plausible alternative here. The problem is, both the marchers and Bashar Assad have made it pretty clear what they feel is going on. Assad is quoted as saying that he is no Hussain, he wants to work with the US to resolve this issue. Hmmm. I'm not Saddam Hussain. Wonder what that could mean? I want to work with the US to resolve this issue. Hmmm. Interesting. The marchers in the original march were chanting "Bush says 'Hi'" to Assad. Wait, don't they know their protests have nothing to do with President Bush calling on Syrian withdrawl? Better get on a plane with Daily Kos and explain to them how Bush doesn't deserve any credit.
E) Libya: actually I was referring to the handover of their entire WMD program lock, stock and barrel, not the mustard gas issue. It turns out they did have nuclear weapons components and we have already traced the sources of these materials. From this we gained the proof that South Korea is supplying nuclear weapons components to the middle east. This information was critical to our reassessment of whether SK is bluffing about having nukes (we are now pretty sure they are not). So, we managed to disarm a middle-eastern terror country, find the source of the weapons program, and confirm the capabilities of a potential foe. This is no small feat.
Did all of these things begin with Bush? No. I never said they did. But all of these things have been given a push by Bush, and most of them have achieved their critical mass due to Bush's policies. Yes, Lebanon has had "lively parlimentary elections" for years. They also exist in a police state where people are scared to utter the word "Syria" in the street for fear of the secret police. Cole says: "The idea that the urbane and sophisticated Beirutis had anything to learn from the [Iraq elections] is absurd on the face of it". No, it isn't. What they learned is that this Bush means what he says and will back it up. Remember, 13 years ago when his father encouraged the Kurds to revolt against Saddam? They did, and Bush left them hanging out to dry. The folks in the middle east remember that and were prepared to see it happen again. When it didn't, they learned a very valuable lesson. One that Bush plans on continuing to push.
I don't give Bush all credit. Of course there are internal precendents for everything that is happening now. But there is clearly a reason it is happening now. I think you are intellectually honest enough to deal with that as I have tried to deal with your thoughts.
Posted by: Max Power on March 18, 2005 07:03 PM