new information on the runup to the iraq war - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 01-20-2008, 07:31 PM

caveat lector: this is long. i decided not to use the hide function because i think the piece--which is also a kind of advert for a book that's just out about tony blair and the run-up to the iraq war--is kinda amazing.

read on:

Quote:

Guys, I'm afraid we haven't got a clue ...

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, experts warned Tony Blair that occupying the country and trying to impose a western-style democracy was doomed to failure. He dismissed their objections, convinced that victory was a formality. In the first of three extracts from his new book, Jonathan Steele looks at how Britain went to war unbriefed, unprepared and with no idea of the fallout that would ensue

Monday January 21, 2008
The Guardian

On November 19 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair made a rare attempt to seek out expert views beyond the circle of his official advisers. Six distinguished academics were invited to Downing Street: three specialists on Iraq, and three on international security. George Joffe, an Arabist from Cambridge University, and Charles Tripp and Toby Dodge, who had both written books on Iraq's history, made opening statements of about five minutes each. They decided not to alienate the prime minister by discussing whether an invasion was sensible or necessary, but only what its consequences might be.

"We all pretty much said the same thing," Joffe recalls. "Iraq is a very complicated country, there are tremendous intercommunal resentments, and don't imagine you'll be welcomed." He remembers how Blair reacted. "He looked at me and said, 'But the man's uniquely evil, isn't he?' I was a bit nonplussed. It didn't seem to be very relevant." Recovering, Joffe went on to argue that Saddam was constrained by various factors, to which Blair merely repeated his first point: "He can make choices, can't he?" As Joffe puts it, "He meant he can choose to be good or evil, I suppose."

Joffe got the impression of "someone with a very shallow mind, who's not interested in issues other than the personalities of the top people, no interest in social forces, political trends, etc".

Dodge also struggled to convince Blair of the obstacles that would face anyone who occupied Iraq. "Much of the rhetoric from Washington appeared to depict Saddam's regime as something separate from Iraqi society," he remembers. "All you had to do was remove him and the 60 bad men around him. What we wanted to get across was that over 35 years the regime had embedded itself into Iraqi society, broken it down and totally transformed it. We would be going into a vacuum, where there were no allies to be found, except possibly for the Kurds."

The experts didn't seem to make much of an impression. Blair "wasn't focused", Tripp recalls. "I felt he wanted us to reinforce his gut instinct that Saddam was a monster. It was a weird mixture of total cynicism and moral fervour."

The brief meeting was unique. "I can't remember participating in any meaningful seminar on Iraq with the Foreign Office," Tripp says. "We were not asked to brief officials in the Middle East department."

What has since become clear is that Joffe, Dodge and Tripp were not the only experts to be left out in the cold. In April 2004, after a weekend in which rockets, helicopter attacks and shootings left dozens of Iraqis dead, 52 retired British diplomats, most of them career specialists on the Middle East, wrote an extraordinary open letter to Blair deploring Britain's lack of proper prewar analysis. They described Iraq as the region's most complex country and said it was naive for the Americans and British to think they could create a democratic society, however much some Iraqis might want one.

"All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful," they declared.

The letter caused a political sensation. Retired diplomats do not often go on record in such direct opposition to their former employer, nor in such numbers. Here was the voice of the Foreign Office's senior Arabists, ranged against a prime minister who did not understand the region.

At the time, many analysts assumed the writers' views were shared by their colleagues still in government service. What the 52 were saying must surely be an on-the-record distillation of what the Foreign Office's officials were telling Jack Straw, their minister, and Downing Street in private.

Astonishingly, this was not the case. Interviews with top Foreign Office officials involved in the prewar discussions as well as Arabic-speaking British ambassadors in the region reveal a damaging vacuum in the department's advice. The predictions that the 52 claimed were made by "all those with experience of the area" may have been shared privately inside the Foreign Office's grand Italianate mansion in Whitehall, but they did not circulate as official thinking or reach ministers. While some senior officials in Britain's intelligence agencies expressed their doubts that Saddam was genuinely stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, no serious qualms were raised by the government's foreign policy experts about the equally important problem of whether occupying Iraq could work. Analysing the likely consequences of invading one of the major Arab states should have been a crucial element in judging whether it was in Britain's interest, let alone that of ordinary Iraqis, to go to war. Yet such analysis was simply absent. Ministers never asked for it; officials never offered it.

Neither of the Foreign Office's top two officials, Sir Michael Jay, the permanent under-secretary, and Sir Peter Ricketts, the political director, were Arabists. In Downing Street Blair's top foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, had been Britain's ambassador in Israel from 1995 to 1998 but never served in an Arab capital. No one in Whitehall rang alarm balls by recalling the difficulties of Britain's imperial involvement with Iraq and the long years of resistance to British occupation, particularly in the largely Shia south. British colonisers had invaded the country, defeated the Ottoman army, and assumed total control in 1918. They abolished the elected municipal councils, imposed a foreign Sunni monarchy, and dealt with resistance by means of massive military repression. Weak on Iraqi history, officials were also poor in forecasting future scenarios. No one pointed out that Saddam's removal would very probably give a boost to Shia Islamists and strengthen the Islamist parties that were allied to Iran. This would make nonsense of hopes for Iraq to become pro-western while remaining, as Saddam's Iraq was, a bastion against the mullahs in Tehran.

If the government ever answers calls for a full-scale inquiry into the policy discussions that led to the invasion of Iraq, there is a danger that it will focus on WMDs, or blunders such as the failure to control mass looting or the decision to dissolve the Iraqi army. But what about the serious lapses in political analysis? It is often argued that the occupation stumbled because of a lack of prewar planning, but the real problem was a failure to comprehend that western armies cannot successfully take over Arab countries and force them to run along western lines. The occupation was doomed from the start. No matter how efficient, sensitive, generous and intelligent the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had been, it could not have succeeded. Occupations are inherently humiliating. People prefer to run their own affairs; they resent foreigners taking over their country. A foreign army that topples a regime needs to leave within weeks or at most months. Otherwise, suspicion will grow quickly that the foreigners' real aims are imperial - to run the country directly or through the locals they put in charge, and to exploit its resources. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, where feelings of dignity, honour, sovereignty and humiliation are the currency of daily life.

With blithe self-confidence, and without even asking his officials for expertise, however, Blair assumed it would be easy for the US and UK to run the country after Saddam was toppled. His style was not to encourage his policy preferences to be questioned, or call for nuanced assessments of possible consequences.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that Blair would have changed his mind and refused to send British troops to Iraq if he had been given expert warnings that an occupation would meet serious resistance from Iraqi nationalists, that Islamists would fill the vacuum after Saddam was removed, and that Iraq would help al-Qaida find new recruits. He was set on going to war at Bush's side under any circumstances. But questions still need to be asked as to why the government's analysts did not do a better job of predicting the invasion's disastrous aftermath.

Blair's lack of interest in detail became clear to Britain's diplomats when he summoned key ambassadors back to London in January 2003 as war planning accelerated in Washington and arguments over a second Security Council resolution to authorise an invasion hotted up at the UN. In a lengthy speech, the prime minister outlined British policy on Iraq and the Middle East in general, naturally without conceding that a decision to invade had already been taken. He was telling the ambassadors how to sell the line rather than seeking their advice.

"Blair basically harangued us. I don't remember anyone giving any feedback," I was told by one ambassador who had come back from the Gulf for the occasion, and has since retired. The following day Mike O'Brien, the foreign office minister responsible for the region, held a smaller meeting with British heads of mission in the Middle East. "He told us they were trying to impose democracy in the Middle East. I said I didn't think it would work, but we were not asked for our advice and we didn't give any," the former ambassador recalled. "The issue was not posited in the context of, 'Should we invade or not?' "

Another British ambassador who attended the meetings and talked to colleagues about the looming invasion said: "Everyone was underprepared for the aftermath." He admitted that "to my shame I was in the complacent camp ... We underestimated the insurgency. I didn't hear anyone say, 'It'll be a disaster, and it'll all come unstuck.' People felt it was a leap in the dark, but not that we were staring disaster in the face."

The leader of the country where he served was far more perceptive about post-Saddam Iraq than the Foreign Office's Arabists. "He predicted it would all fall to pieces on sectarian grounds. He was unhappy about the invasion, even though he was a host to US forces and the top US brass came through regularly," the ambassador told me.

In London the Foreign Office set up a special Iraq policy unit in the run-up to the war. But it had a narrow brief, concentrating on contingency planning for the invasion and its short-term effects, according to a diplomat who attended its meetings. What would happen if Saddam's forces used chemical weapons and British forces took heavy casualties? The government had plans to commandeer hospitals in Britain's National Health Service, if army hospitals were swamped. What if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled the bombing? Plans were made for huge tented camps and emergency food supplies, to be run with the United Nations. The Department for Trade and Industry tried to guess what would happen to oil prices in the event of war. The Department for International Development focused on humanitarian assistance to refugees, and reconstruction. No discussions were held on vital issues such as how to choose Iraq's future government after Saddam fell, and what role the occupiers should play. Would Iraqis or the Americans be in charge?

According to Clare Short, the secretary of state for international department who resigned from the government shortly after the invasion, the cabinet had only informal prewar discussions on Iraq. "There were never any papers or proper analysis of the underlying dangers and the political, diplomatic and military options. The whole crisis was handled by Tony Blair and his entourage with considerable informality," she recorded later. Her worry was that without a UN resolution the occupiers would have no legal right to make political changes in Iraq. Peter Hain confirmed that the cabinet saw no papers on postwar Iraq. "In Iraq the failures of covert intelligence were compounded by the absence of political intelligence: a comprehensive lack of the understanding of sectarian forces and fault lines present across the country," he disclosed recently.

Blair was not interested in these matters. He took the view that it was in Britain's strategic interest to go along with whatever Bush decided. Civil servants and senior British military sources repeatedly complained that he never raised difficult problems with Bush, even when he had been briefed to mention them before going to Washington. He either lacked consideration for the consequences of an invasion, or perhaps he feared risking his friendship with Bush by sounding like a sceptic or a wimp. He thought he had considerable influence in the White House, and his various trips to Washington, which always culminated with a press conferences at Bush's side, were designed to give the impression that as a major contributor of troops he was an equal partner in decision-making.

British officials were under no such illusions. "We weren't plugged into the state department's detailed planning exercise. We tried but couldn't get into it. It was the first warning sign that we weren't part of it," one senior diplomat told me. In the words of another: "The UK supplied 10% of the invasion force. We provided 10% of the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority. We had 10% of input into policy." In the final weeks before the invasion, the Pentagon wrested control of postwar planning away from the state department, leaving British ministers even more in the dark. A senior British officer was attached to US central command in Florida, but the main issues of Iraq's postwar governance were not discussed there. Even in Washington, among the neocons who were leading the drive for an invasion, there was no clear idea whether to appoint Iraqis to run the country or put a US overlord in charge. This was only decided after Saddam was toppled.

Unlike France, Germany and Italy, the British had no embassy in Baghdad in Saddam's final 12 years of rule. This left them bereft of good on-the-ground intelligence. It also meant there were few people in the Foreign Office with direct experience and knowledge of Iraq. As a result, the British did not predict the rise of Iraq's Islamists, whose strength destroyed the American neoconservative project for a liberal, secular and US-friendly democracy. "The conventional view was that Iraq was one of the most western-oriented of Arab states, with its British-educated, urban and secular professionals. I don't think anyone in London appreciated how far Islamism had gone, not just among the Shia, but the Sunnis, too," Christopher Segar, who took part in the prewar discussions and headed the British office in Baghdad after the invasion, told me.

Thanks partly to their Baghdad embassy, the French were better informed. They saw the potential for tensions between religious and secular forces in Iraq if Saddam were toppled. They also sensed that occupation would create resistance. "We believe that the use of force can arouse rancour and hatred, fuel a clash of identities, of cultures," Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, declared in a speech to the UN Security Council two weeks before the invasion. For his part, president Jacques Chirac argued that the war would be perceived in the Arab and Muslim world as an attack on Islam. "A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism," he told Time magazine. "It would create a large number of little Bin Ladens."

The British government got almost everything wrong before the war. A senior Foreign Office official, who saw the few papers that were written about the invasion's likely consequences, told me: "The basic assumption that turned out to be false was that Iraqis felt themselves more Iraqi than Sunni or Shia." The papers also predicted that "in the south there would be a welcome and it would be less difficult than in Baghdad, where it would be harder to manage a transition". "We underestimated the difficulties. No one realised how difficult it would be," the official said.

British ambassadors in the region concentrated on telling London what sort of support for the invasion was likely to be given, publicly and privately, by the Arab governments to which they were accredited. The Gulf states and Jordan wanted Saddam removed. Syria did not. There was little analysis of what the "Arab street" would feel or what their official Arab contacts saw as the fallout in Iraq.

British diplomats at the UN also failed to warn London, either by not seeking their Arab colleagues' advice or not passing it on. In this they were less efficient than diplomats from the countries that were on the Security Council, but not as permanent veto-bearing members. Juan Gabriel Valdes, a former foreign minister of Chile who served as his country's UN envoy in 2003, represented one of the 10 countries that the British wooed hard for support for a second UN resolution. The British claimed to have intelligence about Saddam's efforts to cheat the UN weapons inspectors - evidence that the Chilean ambassador and his colleagues did not find convincing, even though they had no evidence of their own.

"The fact that we didn't have intelligence didn't mean that we didn't have good common sense," Valdes said later. He and his colleagues decided to talk to "every one of the members of the Arab group at the UN, but particularly with Jordan and specially with Saudi Arabia and other countries that were good friends of the US". They predicted, in private, "exactly what has happened historically in Iraq. It was not very difficult to get that information - that if the war happens, Iran would take an enormous role, that the situation would be absolutely catastrophic, and that the turn of events would leave the US and Great Britain involved in an atrocious situation."

A senior Foreign Office official admitted to worrying that Iran would benefit from the invasion more than other countries. "I remember saying to myself that we might be in a position of having destroyed Iraq and leaving a resurgent Iran," he told me. Typically, he never communicated his concern to ministers. His reason, he said, was that as the war drew nearer, the mood in Downing Street discouraged officials from raising problems.

· Jonathan Steele Extracted from Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, by Jonathan Steele, published by IB Tauris at £20, and in the United States in March by Counterpoint. To order a copy for £18 with free UK p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop

so..yeah.
there's alot of interest in the above--particularly in the duplication of the administration's way of railroading their war through by passing folk who actually knew the area and who, therefore, had some idea of what they were talking about---the way in which the duplication worked should be obvious from the descriptions of blair's political calculations concerning what was and was not in the uk's best interests and the foreign office charged with iraq.

it also sheds some new light on france's opposition to the neocon war.

but it's also about the bush administration--and the level of--well what?

their incompetence.
their irresponsibility.

in a way, this farce of a war has played out now for long enough that most of this information seems like a repeat of information that has since emerged about the war, about the situation the bush people have created, into which they have placed american military personnel without even fucking bothering to gather accurate information about what they were putting these people into.

which makes me wonder---again----why are these incompetents still in power? how is it that a debacle of this magnitude is not grounds for an extraordinary act of removal from office? how on earth is it possible that in a supposedly free society, this can be done by a president and his administration and the rest of us carry on as if everything is still, somehow, normal or ok?

on the other hand: the foreign office officials interviewed for this book obviously have a number of axes to grind---their professional standing was diminished by the ways in which they were by-passed by blair and cut out entirely by the americans. the claim that if you knew anything about iraq you could have seen the debacle coming is interesting--but to what extent do you think this claim as much about the above as about the situation in 2003?

what do you think would have happened HAD these people, and their american counterparts--or the french, of the chileans--been included in the neocon decision-making loop?

another question this raises: the neocons seem to have taken to a limit the politicization of information that was rolled out by the right during the reagan period: if reality does not conform to your manly fantasies, change how reality is assessed. you know, in the way reagan "dealt with" inflation by changing the index that measured it so as to exclude factors which caused inflation rates to rise. fuel prices a problem? don't count em. that sort of thing. you see the same cavalier attitude toward information everywhere in the run-up to the iraq debacle.

but it seems that no-one, anywhere, will pay for it.
except of course the people in the military who go there, the iraqi people who are stuck there, everyone who has died or been maimed or injured there, tax payers in the us who are paying for this fiasco, taxpayers in the uk who paid for their version of it, the geopolitical interests of the united states, the political credibility of the united states...

more generally, does this surprise you?
what do you make of it?
for those who supported the war, does this change anything?

Willravel · 01-20-2008, 07:33 PM

I'm not surprised considering I was one of the people saying that occupation will fail. Why is it that someone barely a year out of high school had more sense than the PM?

host · 01-20-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

caveat lector: this is long. i decided not to use the hide function because i think the piece--which is also a kind of advert for a book that's just out about tony blair and the run-up to the iraq war--is kinda amazing.

read on:

so..yeah.
there's alot of interest in the above--particularly in the duplication of the administration's way of railroading their war through by passing folk who actually knew the area and who, therefore, had some idea of what they were talking about---the way in which the duplication worked should be obvious from the descriptions of blair's political calculations concerning what was and was not in the uk's best interests and the foreign office charged with iraq.

it also sheds some new light on france's opposition to the neocon war.

but it's also about the bush administration--and the level of--well what?

their incompetence.
their irresponsibility.

in a way, this farce of a war has played out now for long enough that most of this information seems like a repeat of information that has since emerged about the war, about the situation the bush people have created, into which they have placed american military personnel without even fucking bothering to gather accurate information about what they were putting these people into.

which makes me wonder---again----why are these incompetents still in power? how is it that a debacle of this magnitude is not grounds for an extraordinary act of removal from office? how on earth is it possible that in a supposedly free society, this can be done by a president and his administration and the rest of us carry on as if everything is still, somehow, normal or ok?....

Evidently, it is okay.....and, to be fair, the problem isn't all democrats in the senate, it is the ones who occupy the majority leader's office and the senate intelligence committe chair, although I will submit, that if I was a member of the senate democratic caucus I would work openly to remove both Reid and Rockefeller from their positions. Remember this?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110101037.html

GOP Angered by Closed Senate Session
Meeting Reopened After Two Hours

By Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01

Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war.

With no warning in the mid-afternoon, the Senate's top Democrat invoked the little-used Rule 21, which forced aides to turn off the chamber's cameras and close its massive doors after evicting all visitors, reporters and most staffers.

Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.

"Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters, claiming a rare victory for Democrats in the GOP-controlled Congress......

...In February 2004, senators agreed to a second phase that would investigate the Bush administration's use of intelligence and examine public statements made by key policymakers about the threat posed by Iraq.

In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a deeply flawed and exaggerated assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities. The second phase was to focus on the administration's deliberations over the intelligence or how it was used. Sources familiar with the committee's work said there has been little examination of these topics to date.....

...Reid said he was forced to seek the closed session to spur action on the investigation. "The only way we've been able to get their attention is to spend 3 1/2 hours in a closed session," he said. "It's a slap in the face to the American people that this investigation has been stymied."

Rockefeller said Democratic requests for information related to the investigation are routinely denied or ignored, and he suggested that the Senate Republican leadership was under orders from the Bush administration not to cooperate.

"Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," Rockefeller said. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government has been called into question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_...igence_on_Iraq
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

...A September 7, 2006, article by journalist Jonathon Weisman in the Washington Post reported that the part of the phase two report comparing the Bush administration's public statements about Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private would not be released before the November 2006 election.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601920.html">[8]</a>..

....After Democrats gained a majority in the Senate during the 2006 midterm election, chairmanship of the committee passed to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The former chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) left the committee; the ranking Republican and vice chairman of the committee is now Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).

On May 25, 2007, the committee released a volume of the phase II report titled, "Prewar
Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq". This volume of the report includes seven pages of conclusions regarding assessments provided by the intelligence community to U.S. government leaders prior to the Iraq war. ...

...The intelligence community also assessed that a U.S. defeat and occupation of Iraq would lead to a surge in political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups, and that the war would not cause other countries in the region to abandon their WMD programs.

This volume of the report includes an appendix containing two previously classified reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) titled, "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq" and "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq", as well as a long list of recipients within the government of NIC assessments on Iraq. The appendix also contains a number of "Additional Views" in which different members of the committee comment on the history of the committee's work in this area, and criticize what they characterize as the politicization of that work by members of the other party.

<h2>As of May, 2007, the portions of the phase II report that have not yet been released</h2> are the review of public statements by U.S. government leaders prior to the war, and the assessment of the activities of Douglas Feith and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.

I'd love to be wrong, but it is as if we've voted in a party of enablers, instead of what we though that we were voting for.....accountability !

This 2004 article meshes with the info in your book, roachboy:

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...12762397/print
Independent on Sunday, The > Oct 17, 2004 > Article > Print friendly

INSIDE STORY: THE COUNTDOWN TO WAR: Revealed: the meeting that could

Alan George, Raymond Whitaker
They felt it was their duty. Six of Britain's leading experts on Iraq trooped into No 10 Downing Street on a Tuesday afternoon in November 2002, determined to warn Tony Blair that occupying the country would be difficult at best and catastrophic at worst. By the time they left an hour and a half later, most were convinced that war was inevitable - and, in the view of one at least, that there was nothing the Prime Minister could do about it.....

Ustwo · 01-20-2008, 08:07 PM

Remember anything hard isn't worth doing and its best to not try.

This is why we have a god emperor in Japan despite out best efforts after WWII. Some countries with no history of any elective governments just can't adapt to democracy.

But lets start another left wing love fest of doom and gloom of failure before anything has failed.

But this line is a gem...

Occupations are inherently humiliating. People prefer to run their own affairs; they resent foreigners taking over their country. A foreign army that topples a regime needs to leave within weeks or at most months. Otherwise, suspicion will grow quickly that the foreigners' real aims are imperial - to run the country directly or through the locals they put in charge, and to exploit its resources. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, where feelings of dignity, honour, sovereignty and humiliation are the currency of daily life.

Someone needs to read their history books more. Occupations suck but what sort of irresponsible policy would it be to blitz and leave? Not often done.

Willravel · 01-20-2008, 08:13 PM

Japan was WAAYY more westernized after WWII than Iraq was in 2003. Aside from that, there wasn't any national pride to speak of in Iraq. Compare postwar Japan or post WWI Germany to Iraq.

Iraq and Japan aren't comparable enough at all so far as post-war occupation.

MuadDib · 01-20-2008, 09:21 PM

It was also a different time in geopolitical affairs. Since the advent of the nation-state (and even earlier but less systematically) colonialism was a major party of international political regimes. Japan, being an empire, had its share of foreign occupiers as well as major political upheaval. More importantly, we went into Japan as occupiers. In Iraq we half-assed it. There we were nation building which is fraught with different problems. We likely would have been much better off if we went in specifically to occupy the country, however we didn't have the clout to pull that off. Instead, we went in knowing we were going to have to essentially occupy the country to succeed, but lying to the Iraqi people, the international community, and our own citizens about what it was going to take to accomplish our goals (and even what those goals were).

Willravel · 01-20-2008, 09:30 PM

Oh, also my grandfather rebuilt Japan. Japan knew that if they insurged, they'd have had to deal with him.

roachboy · 01-21-2008, 11:07 AM

ustwo: you should read machiavelli's "the prince" sometime, if you haven't.

it may be that occupation is in itself humiliating, particularly in an ideological context centered around the various illusions that we laughingly call the nation-state. but there are nonetheless better and worse ways to do them: machiavelli's book is basically a guidebook for occupations. the basic conceit is that the prince has to be able to generate a series of appearances of coherence, to generate a convincing illusion of being-in-control, of being-evenhanded in order to stabilize the situation created by the change-over in power. otherwise, chance will blow you apart.

to be coherent about this, you would need at the minimum three things: adequate information, a coherent plan and flexibility.

much of the prince treats these situations as complex hydraulic systems, in the context of which there are types of reactions that you can know about in advance (given adequate information) and maybe play strategically (in the context of a coherent plan) in order to use them as devices for generating the illusion of coherence (flexibility)--and in such a context, there is no meaningful distinction between illusion and reality.

this is early 16th century advice for invaders.
it is as if the neocons collectively didn't even get through the cliff notes version.

even if you accept---which i do not--that the invasion was legitimate, that the grounds were adequate, that the case for it had been made and consent generated--you know, the way you do things in a democratic context, which we collectively can dream about but do not have---there is still no excuse for the simple incompetence with which this action was carried out. none.

if it were possible to step outside the apparent need to follow the party line on this issue, so that ideological claims are transposed into a priori that organize the world such that when you look all you see are these a priori variously arranged, we might even agree on this.

the refusal to gather adequate information about the place you are going to invade, the substitution of a cartoon of Evil for strategy, is incompetence.
you can call it other things: blinded by ideology, whatever--but the bottom line is that it is incompetent technically and irresponsible because of that.
substitute an imaginary democrat administration for the bush administration and work it out in your head.

there has to come a point where the information becomes so dense that ideology crumbles in the face of it. if there isn't, you aren't even working with an ideology: you're living in a dream.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-22-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

this is early 16th century advice for invaders.
it is as if the neocons collectively didn't even get through the cliff notes version.

Well said RB. At the same time reading your last post, I find myself wondering in the context of the Prince, aren't you putting a little much stock in this notion of "information"? Obviously the fact that things have been less than smooth support that, but I would personally argue that a lot of our problems has also been from the fact that we have not been "gangsta" enough. Case in point the fact that Al-Sadr is still alive.

That brings up points of hearts and minds, and alienation, but Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved, you can control other people fearing you, whereas their love for you changes at their whim. Thats probably why Saddam had an easier time of things.

joshbaumgartner · 01-23-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved, you can control other people fearing you, whereas their love for you changes at their whim.

To elaborate: Machiavelli strongly suggests that above all, the prince must not be hated. He does give a concise answer on whether or not a prince should be feared or loved. He states, "..a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted." He also says "It is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved."

While the last portion is the one everyone knows, it is bound to be misapplied if one does not understand the preceding portions.

loquitur · 01-24-2008, 07:45 PM

actually, the occupation is humiliating to the population only if it hasn't accepted the fact that it's been defeated. That's why occupation worked fine after WW2 when the losing countries were devastated, but didn't work as well after Iraq.

01-20-2008, 08:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Remember anything hard isn't worth doing and its best to not try. This is why we have a god emperor in Japan despite out best efforts after WWII. Some countries with no history of any elective governments just can't adapt to democracy. But lets start another left wing love fest of doom and gloom of failure before anything has failed. But this line is a gem... Occupations are inherently humiliating. People prefer to run their own affairs; they resent foreigners taking over their country. A foreign army that topples a regime needs to leave within weeks or at most months. Otherwise, suspicion will grow quickly that the foreigners' real aims are imperial - to run the country directly or through the locals they put in charge, and to exploit its resources. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, where feelings of dignity, honour, sovereignty and humiliation are the currency of daily life. Someone needs to read their history books more. Occupations suck but what sort of irresponsible policy would it be to blitz and leave? Not often done. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 01-20-2008 at 08:10 PM..

01-20-2008, 09:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	It was also a different time in geopolitical affairs. Since the advent of the nation-state (and even earlier but less systematically) colonialism was a major party of international political regimes. Japan, being an empire, had its share of foreign occupiers as well as major political upheaval. More importantly, we went into Japan as occupiers. In Iraq we half-assed it. There we were nation building which is fraught with different problems. We likely would have been much better off if we went in specifically to occupy the country, however we didn't have the clout to pull that off. Instead, we went in knowing we were going to have to essentially occupy the country to succeed, but lying to the Iraqi people, the international community, and our own citizens about what it was going to take to accomplish our goals (and even what those goals were). __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-21-2008, 11:07 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: you should read machiavelli's "the prince" sometime, if you haven't. it may be that occupation is in itself humiliating, particularly in an ideological context centered around the various illusions that we laughingly call the nation-state. but there are nonetheless better and worse ways to do them: machiavelli's book is basically a guidebook for occupations. the basic conceit is that the prince has to be able to generate a series of appearances of coherence, to generate a convincing illusion of being-in-control, of being-evenhanded in order to stabilize the situation created by the change-over in power. otherwise, chance will blow you apart. to be coherent about this, you would need at the minimum three things: adequate information, a coherent plan and flexibility. much of the prince treats these situations as complex hydraulic systems, in the context of which there are types of reactions that you can know about in advance (given adequate information) and maybe play strategically (in the context of a coherent plan) in order to use them as devices for generating the illusion of coherence (flexibility)--and in such a context, there is no meaningful distinction between illusion and reality. this is early 16th century advice for invaders. it is as if the neocons collectively didn't even get through the cliff notes version. even if you accept---which i do not--that the invasion was legitimate, that the grounds were adequate, that the case for it had been made and consent generated--you know, the way you do things in a democratic context, which we collectively can dream about but do not have---there is still no excuse for the simple incompetence with which this action was carried out. none. if it were possible to step outside the apparent need to follow the party line on this issue, so that ideological claims are transposed into a priori that organize the world such that when you look all you see are these a priori variously arranged, we might even agree on this. the refusal to gather adequate information about the place you are going to invade, the substitution of a cartoon of Evil for strategy, is incompetence. you can call it other things: blinded by ideology, whatever--but the bottom line is that it is incompetent technically and irresponsible because of that. substitute an imaginary democrat administration for the bush administration and work it out in your head. there has to come a point where the information becomes so dense that ideology crumbles in the face of it. if there isn't, you aren't even working with an ideology: you're living in a dream. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-20-2008, 07:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm not surprised considering I was one of the people saying that occupation will fail. Why is it that someone barely a year out of high school had more sense than the PM?

01-20-2008, 08:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Japan was WAAYY more westernized after WWII than Iraq was in 2003. Aside from that, there wasn't any national pride to speak of in Iraq. Compare postwar Japan or post WWI Germany to Iraq. Iraq and Japan aren't comparable enough at all so far as post-war occupation.

01-20-2008, 09:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Oh, also my grandfather rebuilt Japan. Japan knew that if they insurged, they'd have had to deal with him.

01-24-2008, 07:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	actually, the occupation is humiliating to the population only if it hasn't accepted the fact that it's been defeated. That's why occupation worked fine after WW2 when the losing countries were devastated, but didn't work as well after Iraq.