Gripes About Ungratious Iraqis

Occasionally, Small Wars Journal Blog departs from the sane and analytical evaluation of military issues and sounds off with a primal scream of disgust on what they perceive as unjust things. For instance, here's an inarticulate outcry against ungrateful Iraqis who support people who throw shoes at presidents.

Ain't this just dandy and a pisser to boot - those who have strived - and died - to ensure Iraq's freedom and future place as a responsible partner on the world scene are brushed aside for the latest bash Bush melodrama and a 'real hero' is on the scene - Iraqi who threw shoes at George Bush hailed as hero via The Times. Plenty on this elsewhere, on the dailies and wires - most likely more tomorrow - meanwhile back in the real word... People care, they die or suffer serious wounds, and their contributions are tossed aside for this. A damn shame it is, indeed.

It's an interesting argument - one that buys completely into the CheneyBush argument for the Iraqi invasion and justification for continued US force presence there. It's one that ignores the five years of US occupation, failed reconstruction efforts, Abu Gharib, sanctioned US torture, Iraqi civilians killed by US collateral damage, Gitmo, and a weak central government that hasn't pulled three factions together into a nation. It's pretty clear to many of us. Fortunately we have articulate people on the left, like Matt Yglesias, who can counter this short-sighted, myopic view.

The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. And it’s seen as such by virtually everyone all around the world — including but by no means limited to the Arab world. But it’s impolitic to point this out in the United States, and it’s clear that even a president-elect who had the wisdom not to be suckered in by the War Fever of 2002 has no intention of really acting to marginalize the bad actors. Which, I think, makes sense for his political objectives. But if Americans want to play a constructive role in world affairs, it’s vitally important for us to get in touch with the reality of what the past eight years of US foreign policy have been and how they’re seen and understood by people who aren’t stirred by the shibboleths of American patriotism.

But hey, at least Saddam's not around, huh? Makes it all worth while - but not to the Iraqis who still haven't seen their standard of living return to pre-war levels. Because Cheney and Bush are so busy justifying their legacies, it's important to touch base with reality and remember why it's so important to correct the stupidity that got us into Iraq in 2003. Only then can we expect to move national security forward, because we can't count on the Washington elite to do their job.

Comments

[LT Nixon]

Maybe he is making a "primal scream" against the fact that he was involved in a politicized war that was fought under the guise "bring Western-style democracy", where moral clarity is scarce. The blurb is terse for SWJ, but I know a lot of vets feel that way.

As for Yglesias, his standard meme about Support the Troops but not the war is dull and has been advanced by the progressive blogging community for years. It's really nothing new, and he's setting up Dilegge as a strawman to take down.

[Andy]

One should be careful not to lump "Iraqi's" into one homogeneous group. For example, the Kurds and some of the southern Shiites are much better off than under Saddam. The Sunni's - not so much.

It's also important to separate the decision to go to war from the incompetence that followed the toppling of Saddam's regime. IOW, had the occupation gone swimmingly instead of the debacle it was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be thousands of American and tens-of-thousands Iraqi dead. IOW, most of the hatred is based on things that were preventable despite and ill-advised war.

[Publius]

I've never been a big fan of the Small Wars Journal crowd, which often strikes me as being a more intelligent and genteel version of their counterparts at Black Five. I'm accordingly not surprised that this sort of post appears.

What all of these folks seem to have in common is unquestioning support of any and all military action, just so long as there is a U.S. imprimatur on it. Actually thinking about what may be very complex issues underlying these military actions seems to be out of bounds, probably because they don't want anything that might suggest U.S. dereliction to intrude on their basic narrative. Which is ultimately as simple as: "USA! USA! USA!"

SWJ is far more dangerous than Black Five because there are some actual thinkers involved. Unfortunately, it often seems as if the thinking primarily consists of ways in which to drum up more business for the magnificent COIN force they desire and to accordingly remake the military into a COIN-centric force. IMO, we don't need more COIN business, nor should we make hasty decisions regarding force structure.

Maybe just a little too imperialistic and jingostic for my liking. Also, serious blinders regarding the use of anything other than military force to accomplish an overarching mission in which all possible tools, e.g., intelligence, police, statecraft, economics, etc., must be employed for there to be any likelihood of success.

[LT Nixon]

J,

Now they're onto you, buddy. Check out Nagle's post. It kind of sounds like he wants to be above all the politics associated with the modern conflicts. A hard thing to do nowadays. Or you could take the cynical approach and say they don't take criticism very well.

[Ray]

Yes: too much noise about shoe throwing. Trivial media stuff that will, unfortunately, go down in the history books. The launcher's aim was lousy, but Mr Bush reacted with dignity (must say that; even though I don't like the chap). Also, Iraq shoes apparently are not aerodynamic. Sales of shoes have gone up, though.
R.

[Sven Ortmann]

Publius;

I participated in the SWJ a bit and learned that (not a lone opinion) they have a kind of tunnel vision indeed. They don't question wars very much - and the ongoing ones almost not at all.
They seem to overestimate their intellectuality as well (or I do - or all. Anyway, someone involved does!).

There's also a kind of group pressure - a nail that sticks out gets hammered still it doesn't do so anymore.

Finally, they are (like many U.S.-dominated affairs) very insular. Mos are Americans, their Australian, British and Canadian people are either wholly on the right wing U.S. line of thinking or limit their participation to what fits to SWF.
I know several people who participate there and show only 20% of themselves because the other 80% would do no good there.

The world has changed in September when the markets crashed and the U.S. public swung to the left. Many people have recognized this change but not adjusted to the new reality yet. Pre-September-style discussions about military affairs and wars are in my opinion utterly pointless; they are obsolescent.
Attempts to re-write history in favor of the Bush regime are quite outrageous and wasteful.

Btw; no wonder that Bush refused to sign the treaty for the international war crimes court...

[Publius]

Thin-skinned bunch, aren't they?

Sven, I agree 100% about how the world has changed almost overnight. ISTM most military people are still living in that bubble, where they're all heroes and can get virtually anything they desire. I think they're in for a rude awakening. Once the new administration gets a true sense of the extent of the out-year obligations the DoD has incurred, the good times will likely be over. I also suspect we won't see nearly so many "small wars" as some would like.

So far as the Bush legacy is concerned, no matter what some may try to do, I'd say the moving finger has already writ, and it's not to Mr. Bush's advantage.