Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

February 6th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

22 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Barnett on Bush

Dr. Barnett’s assessment of Bush’s Middle East policy (abridged):

If Bush’s push for democratization softens Muslim anger and gets rids of dictators over time, that’s a doubleplusgood worth fighting and dying for.

I know “Bush lied, thousands died”Â? is the current judgment of many Americans, but I really believe that history will look very kindly upon Bush for this bold stroke. A lot of presidents before him promised movement in the region and accomplished nothing, but Bush may well go down in history as the guy who changed it all.

That’s pretty much how I see it. To summarize: people forget how bad the region was with Saddam in power; the casuality rate is always too high, but considering the history of war it is stunningly low; it has sparked change in almost every other country in the Middle East, much of it good; and the political courage required to stay this course in the face of public opinion will be remembered by historians. Agree or disagree? Let’s hear it.

Comments to this entry

Kenneth
February 6, 2006
5:10 am
Disagree. Bush's push for democratization in a volatile region of the world with its soils untilled by the plow of enlightenment has lead to a fratricidal civil war that threatens to transcend Iraq's immediate boundaries. The Middle East is a powderkeg, with large, marginalized Shi'ite populations and Iraq is the candle that lit the fuse. Besides that, Sunni, Iranian, and Turkish interests are all at stake here- and with the seizure of power by the Shi'ites Iran threatens to gain control of the "oil corridor" in the south of Iraq, which in turn will extend the scope and scale of Chinese influence in the region, as China is allied with Iran. No wonder Rafsanjani, Iran's former prime minister, has called the whole debacle "a victory for Iran". Iran has repeatedly boasted of its triumphs in the wake of "democratization". Say what you will about Saddam's regime, you cannot deny the man at least provided a modicum of regional stability, as well as at least partially muzzling religious fanaticism with a secular regime. Now Iran's major rival has been eliminated, with dire consequences for the USA and the West. By putting ideology above national interest, Bush has imperiled us all.
Kenneth
February 6, 2006
5:18 am
Addendum: I'm strongly tempted to draw parallels between the Middle East now and the Balkans in 1914. Now, as then, we have forces (nationalism, religious [in this case Shia] fundamentalism) threatening incumbent powers in the region (Austria-Hungary, the United States) who have a vested interest in containing said forces. Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence, we have powers (Russia, China-Iran) attempting to use said forces to secure strategic gains (warmwater ports, oil and natural gas). There is a culmination (Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination, Iran's plan to pursue uranium enrichment) that is bringing all these tensions to a head. While it seem a bit of a stretch to compare the Archduke's assassination with Iran's nuclear program, I think it is apt, given the Bush Administration's recent sabre-rattling over the issue.
Joe
February 6, 2006
5:45 am
I agree that people make too much of the Iraq war death toll; it has been pretty darned low compared to other wars of its scope. I also think it's far too early to make any predictions regarding stability in the Middle East. There's a good chance that the Iraq war may have been the spark to light the keg, as Kenneth puts it.

Positive changes in the Middle East following the war? I don't see that. There was Qaddafi slacking up a bit; that's about all I can recall. And sure, there's something of a Palestinian state now, but the two sides still want to eliminate each other.

As far as staying the course in the face of public opinion, I hate to use the worn-out comparison to Vietnam, but history has not looked kindly upon LBJ for doing the same thing (at least, not the history I read in school).

So overall, I think the analysis above is looking at the issue through red-state-colored glasses. The long-term effects might be positive, but we won't know for a while; for the time being, this war has been fairly disappointing. Saddam is gone but the core clash of ideals is still there and still strong.
snow
February 6, 2006
5:56 am
I hope Barnett is right. Bush has taken huge risks in trying to change this region more to Americas liking and there is certainly danger of things getting worse. But i'm glad that he went ahead and stirred things up. It's one thing to stir the pot when things are fine, but the only thing going for the 'old game' in the Middle East was that it was relatively stable. I'm happy that there are leaders such as Bush who are unwilling to accept the status quo, when it sucks. Of course the risk is that things could get worse, but risk-taking is what has make the US a great and powerful country.
NeonCat
February 6, 2006
6:32 am
The American military casualty rate may be stunningly low, but no one knows for sure just how many Iraqis have been killed in our efforts to keep Saddam Hussein from using the weapons of mass distruction he no longer had. 30000? 100000? More?
I tend to put more credence in the folks at the Defence and the National Interest website, who I feel I can safely say are no fans of Barnett at all. If the Fourth Generation theorists are correct, then what the US has done is destroy a state, Iraq (even though it was crappy and corrupt, it was still a state), and created an anarchic situation in which an ethnic and religious civil war has erupted. If the people hate us for invading their country, which seems to be the case, then will any government we establish be seen as legitimate? Or will the US backed government be seen as quislings?
I just don't think Barnett is correct. The only group who might celebrate Bush's actions would be intellectuals of a Shi'ite Caliphate, looking back on how the Great Satanic Superpower blundered and brought them into power, Allahu akbar!
Gabriel Mihalache
February 6, 2006
10:14 am
Well, if Dr. Barnett thinks it's "worthy dying for" maybe we should ask who's death is worth it. Certainly not Dr. Barnett's! How about the poor saps who because of poverty, propaganda or lies decided to sign up for the military?

As for "softening Muslim anger and gets rids of dictators", well, it did the opposite. The invasion of Iraq radicalised a number of individuals who wouldn't have been otherwise pushed over the limit. And as far as adding "over time" at the end, that just tell me that here's a man that doesn't want to be hold to his prophecies.

As for the judgement of history... there's always an appologist history and a critical history. I'm certain that in 200 years there will be some historian who will support the "party line"... that's neither here not there.

Before we can ask if by his actions Bush led the world to a net improvement or a net loss we must judge if his actions were legal, rightful or abuses. The 2 judgements should not be mixed.
Billybob
February 6, 2006
11:51 am
"We make war that we may live in peace." _Aristotle_
Bill Petti
February 6, 2006
12:22 pm
it has sparked change in almost every other country in the Middle East, much of it good

Besides the obvious--elections in Iraq, which really wasn't 'sparked' by Bush policy but more imposed--what are these goods you speak of? Egpyt saw a flawed presidential election that was just as undemocratic as it has always been (not to mention the gains in the legislature by the Muslim Brotherhood); the Saudi regime is still the Saudi regime; Syria was ousted from Lebanon because of their own foolish assasination which sparked a movement; the Iranian regime is still the Iranian regime; and Hamas won in "free and fair" elections. Not to mention that to close the book on Iraq at this point would be premature--I am hopeful about Iraq, but not convinced that civil war isn't still in the offing. It's just too soon to tell.

Point being, Bush may go down as the man who moved the unmoveable, but the evidence for that right now is circumstantial at best.
kushibo
February 6, 2006
12:27 pm
I know "Bush lied, thousands died"Â? is the current judgment of many Americans, but I really believe that history will look very kindly upon Bush for this bold stroke.

They will look favorably on it if it works.

But democracy doesn't take root just because Bush wills it to be so. It takes a lot of effort and dedication, and Bush has been strong on the vision thing, and much weaker on the follow-through.

Joe Klein had a good essay on this in a recent edition of Time. I want Bush to be right about this. I really do. But this reminds me of what I was always taught, "If it were easy, everybody would be doing it."

What were the reasons his predecessors didn't take this bold stroke? Have things changed sufficiently since then?

Maybe in addition to his bold move, we need patience. A democratically elected Hamas, for example, might temper over time, or now that they have to perform, maybe Palestinians will see that they are nothing but a pack of wolves with no ideas for bettering their future. In Iraq, who knows what will happen over time?

Okay, this comment is all over the place, because my thoughts are all over the place.
Skippy-san
February 6, 2006
12:27 pm
Barnett is wrong about a bunch of things. Iraq, to me, is like Weimar Germany just waiting to vote its own strongman into power who will unite the country by force if need be, but will definately not produce the kind of Western style state the US is hoping for.

In the end, democratization was not the kind of thing that could be forcibly midwifed by the US. And having the alabatross that is Islam around their necks makes this transition doubly hard. Witness the violence over some stupid cartoons. The middle east will never really progress till it puts Islam aside and moves into the secular world.

The real question is what has the US done for the benefit of the United States? Because what is good for Iraq and what is good for the US isnot necessarily the same thing. What good will it have done us to vainly have expended our treasure and blood on a bunch of useless Arabs when we will need it down the pike for dealing with Persians and the Chinese?

The real model for the "War on Terror" is not Iraq, or Afghanistan, but what the US is doing in Horn of Africa and the Philippines. Helping nations to help themselves without using massive intervetions by force.

Bush will go down as the Woodrow Wilson of the age, starting a Peace that ended all peace.
Kirk H. Sowell
February 6, 2006
1:56 pm
I broadly agree with Kenneth's argument - I'll explain the qualification below. I do think that the comparison to 1914 fits, I don't think it is overdrawn. The old Arab socialism of the Baath and Nasserites is dead, but Arab nationalism as a feeling is very strong, and combined with radical Islam and a virulent hatred of Jews which permeates Arab societies this is a very combustible mix. Palestine has always been mismanaged, so Hamas' popularity is not so surprising, but Jordan is better governed and Hamas' cousin there, the Islamic Action Front, is strong. Rising literacy, rising expectations and explosive ideologies are present both in today's Arab world and in turn of the century Europe.

Qualification: I think that Shia Muslims in Iraq have responded far better than they are often given credit for. We are very lucky that Iraq, semingly alone among Arab countries, has a responsible religious leader in the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani who has consistently contained his flock and discouraged retaliation against the Sunnis when Shia innocents have been murdered. Moqtada Sadr's radical Islamist party has flunked out in both elections. SCIRI and Da'awa have both moderated, and while there are elements of their governance I might criticize, broadly I think they have handled a very difficult situation well.

Overall, I would say that Bush was right that change was needed, we couldn't just try to keep appeasing and supporting the same corrupt dictatorships. But whether the transition was and is being handled correctly, I think that is a much closer debate. I think that Bush's negative polling this past year represents mainly ignorance; the administration made some key mistakes in late 2003 and 2004, but they've handled it well this past year. Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, I think, have been handled well, but not Palestine. More could be done on the Iran front.

Whether history judges Bush well will depend on which way the Middle East goes: If the winds of freedom moderate the regions radicalism, he will be Abu Hurriyya, the Father of Freedom; if they set the region ablaze (which I suggested might happen in my book, The Arab World: An Illustrated History), he will be remembered as President Powderkeg.
SPC Achariyth
February 6, 2006
3:33 pm
Gabriel, the "poor saps" you talk about do think it's worth their lives. Re-enlistment in the Army is extremely high in units that have been in Iraq and Afghanistan partially because they see an opportunity to change a society for the better. Many of those who are getting out are doing so becase of the strain of the OPTEMPO on families, and not because of what's happening in the Middle East.

And "poverty, propaganda, and lies" fails to describe the reasons why many of us joined in the first place. For instance, the military is predominantly middle class volunteers, not the American poor.

Please do not slander my fellow soldiers.

As for the legality of Bush's actions, that was declared moot when "world opinion" and the UN failed to prevent the Gulf War. As Hobbes says, "Before the names of Just and Unjst can have place, there must be some coercive power." The UN does not have the power to keep members of the Security Council from going to war; therefore since it cannot enforce its decrees, any legal argument based upon its decrees is worthless. What good is it to declare an action illegal if you cannot enforce the law being broken?

A better argument is to consider whether or not the Iraq war is virtuous, along the Machiavellian concepts of virtue. That is, does the end result justify the war? I'd say that it's too soon to definitavely tell, but based on what I hear from the boots on the ground, things are trending upwards in Iraq.
Chief Wiggum
February 6, 2006
4:23 pm
I agree that it's too soon to tell how this is all going to play out. We will know more when the newly-elected Iraqi government attempts to take control of the country and run it on a day-by-day basis. I've got to think it would be a miracle if peace and stability returns to Iraq anytime soon. But, if they can pull it off, you will soon see new high schools named after George W. Bush.
Mi-Hwa
February 6, 2006
5:45 pm
America is in a no-win situation in Iraq. If Americans leave Iraq, a full-scale civil war can break out between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. If Americans stay, the terrorists will keep attacking the American troops and the American-sponsored Iraqi government. The problems in Iraq are too deep and wide for America to solve - especially when Americans are seen as foreign invaders to be driven out.

American voters and politicians are getting weary from the continuing death toll and overwhelming financial burden of Iraq. American voters may end up supporting a presidential candidate who will bring most of the American troops home. In that case, most people will not claim that the Iraq War was a success.

In the future of the Middle East, there will be a rising power struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. The Sunni Arab nations are nervous about Shiite-controlled Iraq and Iran.
Gabriel Mihalache
February 6, 2006
8:12 pm
SPC Achariyth, I wasn't taking about all the troops but only about those individuals which fall under the category I described. I imagine you agree that there are such people.

As for Hobbes, as you can tell I disagree with him. In any case, I suggest you take that quote, along with your Machiavellian analysis and post them on the door of every recruitment center and use them instead of the empty patriotic propaganda the Bush administration has been producting in overtime and them we'll see how recruitment goes.

Your middle class Americans don't sign up because of the works of Hobbes, Machiavelli or Leo Strauss but rather because they think your administration is led by God-fearing Christians and lovers of truth, peace and decency, people who share their values. That's the fraud!
J.
February 6, 2006
10:33 pm
That's an awfully HUGE "if" that Dr. Barnett uses, and until the Islamic governments turn into peaceful democracies, I will have to disagree very loudly. All we see right now is increased instability in Gaza, attacks increasing in Afghanistan - the "easy" conflict - no signs of decreasing violence between Shia and Sunni tribes, and threats from Iran that Bush and co need to back off. Yeah, Bush sure is the "guy that changed it all" - for the worse.

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."Â? Ronald Reagan
snow
February 7, 2006
7:53 am
"How about the poor saps who because of poverty, propaganda or lies decided to sign up for the military?"

Thanks Gabriel for the usual tired canards. Why don't I just change your statement slightly: How about the poor saps who because of poverty, propoganda or lies decided to sign up for the Democratic Party (or substitute whoever or whatever you want to in here)?.

Thanks for implying that the average soldier is an idiot who is too stupid to know that he is being hoodwinked into joining the military.

BTW, I found an interesting non-partisan website that reviews public statements of US politicians and critically reviews how they are often misleading. It includes examples from Dems and Reps:
http://www.factcheck.org/default.html
Kirk H. Sowell
February 7, 2006
12:04 pm
I agree with the pessimism in regard to Palestine and, to a degree, with Afghanistan, but those who see no end in sight in Iraq can't be paying attention very carefully. Among the Shia, moderate Islamism has won out. Moqtada Sadr - ally of Iran, meeting right now with Assad in Syria - did poorly in both elections. Among the Sunnis, the native Sunni insurgents have now started fighting al-Qaeda. No, its not over yet, many Sunnis remain recalitrant, and the Sunni-Kurd divide is huge. The Shia militias still are not under the complete control of the government. But broadly speaking things are going well. The main problem now is that too many have a short time horizon.
Gabriel Mihalache
February 7, 2006
12:21 pm
snow, I am not a Democrat. I not am American.

What I do claim to know is when someone is tricked into doing something under false pretense. The lies told by the Bush administration cover the "propaganda" part of my claim and they are well documented. (Do you want me to dig up the videos for the "mushroom cloud" rethoric and how each and every member of the administration claimed that Iraq had WMDs?)

As for the "poverty" part, I think that there are many enlisted men that have done so out of financial interests, not because they have a firm grasp on Middle Eastern geo-politics and the works of imperialist ideologues.
snow
February 7, 2006
1:23 pm
Gabriel, if you would check the link I provided there, it has a story or more about the WMD's which show that your claim that it was all lies, is in itself false. Two congressional committees did not find any evidence of manipulation, though they do note that Bush did cite a few things that were wrong-still no proof of widespread manipulation. They note that there was broad agreement across intelligence agencies that there were WMDs. And this site looks at distortions by Republicans as well as Democrats, so I don't believe its a partisan site.

How were people tricked into joining up with the military? Again, do you think people are stupid? Thanks, but I hope you're not a leftist, because it always seems that leftists claim to be for the people, and yet they're often quick on the draw to ridicule the average person as being stupid or easily tricked.

Everyone who signs up for the military knows one basic thing-you are signing up with the possibility of putting your life on the line for your country. No recruit is so stupid that he/she doesn't understand this fact loud and clear.
Gabriel Mihalache
February 7, 2006
3:59 pm
Snow, sure, you put your life on the line and different people have different reasons for that. I can certainly respect that. I also think that people signed-up under the assumption that Bush's would be a responsible administration, that he's a Christian will all that's implied, that the army would be used sensibly and in accordance with the spirit of the US Constitution. None of that happened.

Instead, the US administration came under the nefarious influence of the vested interests of think-thank ideologues that where hell-bent in manufacturing a war... before 9-11 some people were beating the drumbs of war on China... some still do.

Again, people signed up under certain assumptions. They wouldn't have agreed if they would have understood the degree to which the US army would be used abusively by its commander in chief.

The people are neither evil not stupid... beyond the fact that they (re)elected an individual that is, perhaps, one of the worst presidents in US history.
snow
February 8, 2006
1:35 am
Well, Gabriel, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I really don't agree with any of your assertions and you obviously don't agree with mine, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

It's hardly a 'fact' that Bush is one of the worst presidents. Obviously that's opinion, as are most of your other assumptions. Many people in the military (and outside it) would not agree for a second with anything you've said.