Politics and Culture

As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject, the question Wolf Blitzer posed to Mitt Romney during the third Republican debate needs to be rephrased in order for it to make sense.

I think these would be better:

In the past five years, has the Iraq war been good for the United States, the Iraqis, and the world?

and/or

Will the Iraq adventure be, in the long run, a good thing for the United States and the world?

I’ll focus on the first variation in this post before pondering the second sometime next week. For the first question, we first need to develop some kind of criteria by which to come to a conclusion. Let’s go with: deaths, Iraqi quality of life, American “interests,” money wasted, world impact, international relations, and diverted attention. I was going to add an “intangibles” category, but as I wrote, I realized that some may have found it cold or disrespectful to the thousands who have died or suffered as a result of Iraqi violence.

OK, here we go,

Deaths:

Many civilians have died after the liberation of Iraq (what do you call it when a country removes a dictator and establishes a democracy?) It’s also true that Saddam would have killed a considerable amount of Iraqis himself, as was his wont, had he remained in power. Remember, before the war, people complained that thousands of Iraqi children were dying from the effects of the embargo. Saddam also killed thousands of opponents, some by using level five torture techniques like skin flaying and machine mutilations. If you add the thousands of Iraqis who died or would have died from wars of his own creation, and the support he gave terrorist organizations, then I think it’s a wash.

I'll place this in the pro-invasion category, however, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s important to note that the overwhelming majority of the deaths in Iraq were not caused by the United States, but by other Iraqis. The blame for the deaths has to be placed on the minority of Iraqis who think killing other Iraqis is the best way to accomplish their nefarious goals (and it may be, if every American were Harry Reid). Had the United States never invaded, would they have had less hatred for their fellow citizens?

Second, can anybody imagine another Saddam Hussein unseating scenario that would have ended in fewer deaths? An insurgency strong enough to topple Hussein would have cost many thousands more lives both during the war and afterwards. Had either the anti-Saddam majority (Shia and Kurds) or the pro-Saddam minority (Sunni) won, they most certainly would have reserved a severe punishment for the loser, perhaps even reaching Darfur/holocaust levels. The resultant leadership would also have assuredly not been a democracy and would have had to rule with a powerful iron fist.

Verdict: Pro invasion.

Iraqi quality of life:

Instead of living in fear of Saddam, Iraqis live in fear of their neighbors. Utilities, while improved in some parts are worse in others. This, again, is due to insurgent activities that tend to accomplish illegitimate war aims such as cutting down power lines.

Kurds are certainly better off as are most Shia and the group they call the Marsh Arabs. The unfortunate clash between Sunni and Shia has left mixed neighborhoods surrounding the capital, a chaotic mess.

Again, it's not a simple judgment and a case could be made either way.

I'll defer to the Iraqis on this one:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

Iraqis also have freedom of expression and the ability to vote, which they exercise quite enthusiastically-against us, often.

Verdict: Pro-invasion.

American Deaths:

It’s certain that 3500 American soldiers would not have died in Iraq had none gone there. One could argue that more would have died had Saddam succeeded in keeping weapons inspectors away from his country, allowing him to develop the weapons he coveted, but I won't

Verdict: Ant-invasion

American interests:

Sorry, boys and girls, but somebody has to think about it.

The advantage to having a base of operation in the absolute heart of the Middle East is so obvious that the only purpose an explanation would serve would be to insult the intelligence of my audience.

Next, Iraq has twice the amount of oil previously thought. Once a stable Iraq is achieved, that amount of oil could replace that of rebel alliance leader, Hugo Chavez (he calls us the “empire”). Equally obvious, it’s far better that a friendly government control such a powerful economic weapon.

On the other hand, a credible case can be made that the war, by tying down American forces, has weakened the American ability to project power in the world. Much of that comes in the form of “America can’t fight a two-front war” statements usually made by people who would cut military funding by half. But, the only potential difficult fight for the United States is Iran. The soldiers in Iraq are there already and able, therefore, to more quickly participate in any Iranian offensive.

Other potential fronts, like Korea, have actually improved.

Verdict: Pro-invasion

Money Wasted:

News agencies report that the Iraq war costs Americans $200,000,000 which is a lot. Most of the money is true waste, buying bullets and fixing things broken by insurgents. Some of that money, however, is recoverable in a Keynesian sort of way. In other words, as pointed out by liberal blogs, the war enriches defense contractors and Iraq service providers and a portion of that money finds its way back to the treasury in the form of taxes while another large measure goes towards business investment, also good. This same logic finds its way in environmental/global warming rhetoric (An economic boom would result from banning this or that as business would have to purchase more efficient equipment).

Some of it would have been spent anyways, like soldier salaries. Some of it is redistributive in a way that helps the poor, funding improvements in Iraq by Iraqi contractors. Usually, people who are against the war, support the idea of rich countries giving to those less well off.

So, to Iraqis, except for that spent of fixing terrorist damage (American pay for their damage), the money spent enriches them. To Americans, however, it’s a burden at some level, although the worst case scenarios haven’t manifested themselves. Thinking of only Americans, therefore, and, not taking into account speculative savings and monetary advantages from things like the acts of terror that don't occur and the cost if Saddam had proceeded as Iran and quested for the device to destroy them all, a nuclear warhead, then I suppose I’ll give it to those opposed to American intervention.

Verdict: Anti-invasion.

World impact:

A case can be made that the invasion of Iraq has emboldened Middle-East democrats in places like Egypt, Lebanon, and Libya, although it seems that, for the moment, democratic momentum in the Middle East has stalled.

It’s doubtful that other Middle East hostilities would have been affected either positively or negatively by American policy in Iraq. The hatred and fanaticism is so deep, that practical concerns rarely muscle in on their decision-making process.

According to the usual suspects, the Iraq war has stiffed our ability to help nations such as Darfur (It’s odd that a few of same people who say we shouldn't intervene in Iraq, think we have a significant role to play in Darfur). Another may counter that other nations are perfectly capable of helping and don’t.

Verdict: Tie

International relations:

A quick rundown of principled critics (not those who think the war is a mistake just because we’re losing [If Iraq were peaceful success, the polls would be different, no?]) of the American effort in Iraq:

Cuba, Venezuela, Spain, France, Iran, Hezbollah, various Muslim radicals, North Korea, college professors and their graduate assistants, G-8 protesters, Communists, rabid bloggers.

Conclusions:

1. The people or nations most critical of the Iraq War or most concerned about a loss of prestige for America are the same people who hated the United States before the war.

2. Some places like France and Germany have elected governments that are actually friendlier to the United States. Spain is still hostile, but, then again, they're not the kind of country to which we should look for moral guidance.

Some say that American actions have given terrorists a recruiting tool. Let’s examine the logic of this claim. What reason would a person on the fence about joining Al Qaeda give as the deal-maker vis a vis American actions in Iraq?

1. Non-Muslims shouldn’t be in Muslim countries.
2. Here’s an opportunity to kill infidels.
3. We have a chance to create a Sunni/Shia Islamic state.
4. America needs to be stopped before it overthrows every evil dictator in the Middle East.
5. America does not respect the right of countries to handle their own affairs.

Really, only the last one deserves any respect at all and even that reason forms a profound irony since terrorist groups mostly exist to influence governments including those foreign (see Spain).

On the other hand, for those who think it’s a good thing to remove homicidal dictators, establish democracies, fight Islamic fascists like Al Qaeda, their estimation of the United States has probably increased.

Verdict: Pro-invasion

Diverted Attention:

This is more of an indictment of the American political system, President Bush, and, frankly, the American public than of the Operation Iraqi Freedom itself.

The war has diverted the government’s attention from other issues facing the United States like social security, immigration, and education, although some may argue that that’s a good thing.

Verdict: Anti-invasion

Result of Asymmetric analysis:

6 Pro-invasion to 3 Anti-invasion

I’ll deal with the potential effects of the Iraq war sometime next week.