A Little Clear Thinking on Iraq

Three Important Differences Between Post-WWII Democracies and Iraq*

October 11, 2003 -- I try not to say much about the Middle East because there are so many ways to be wrong and so few ways to be right. Separating out a clear piece of truth from this two-thousand year old mess is like trying to untangle a wad of fishing line with a butane lighter: theoretically possible, but most likely a frustrating waste of time.

But President Bush yesterday reiterated a claim made by Condoleeza Rice and others in his administration over the past few months, and it needs to be challenged. To paraphrase this claim:

“We know we can bring democracy to Iraq because we've done it twice before—in Germany and Japan. If we just stick with it, everything will turn out lovely.”

This argument is optimistic, encourages a long-term view, and is fairly persuasive on the face of it. By conceding this argument, we will be taken on a long and harrowing ride from which some will not return. The problem with this argument is that there are three crucial differences between Iraq and these post-WWII democracies.

1. Germany and Japan had relatively homogeneous populations.

Iraq is riven with internal strife from various ethnic, religious and political groups. Saddam Hussein installed a minority in power and then spent 20 years suppressing internal conflicts through extreme coercion. Now that he's no longer in power, those rivalries have re-surfaced, and they're not being addressed at the ballot box. Would anyone care to guess why they're called “blood feuds?” Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

2. Germany and Japan had a very strong incentive to cooperate with the US.

Namely, fear of the Soviet Union. This is especially true of Germany, which had only to cast a glance eastward for a grim view of the alternative. In Iraq, no such “bad cop” exists to put us in the “good cop” role. With Saddam gone, we are the bad cop.

3. Germany and Japan were defeated. Iraq was “liberated.”

This is probably the most important difference. There was no doubt in the minds of either the German or Japanese people that they were defeated. War was declared, battles were fought, asses were kicked, and treaties were signed. In Iraq, however, the US very explicitly stated that “we have no conflict with the Iraqi people” and “we are here to liberate Iraq.”

If someone promised to liberate you from your oppressor, but months after the oppressor was ousted they were still adjusting the strings on a puppet government, roaming through your streets in tanks and crashing through your neighbors' doors in search of insurgents, you could be forgiven for wondering just what in the hell was going on. You might understandably fail to trust your new “liberators”, and start to dig in for another 20 years of oppression and resistance.

Interestingly, the Bush administration is very aware of this inconvenient inconsistency. In a bald-faced attempt to spin the Second World War, Condoleeza Rice recently stated that we “liberated” Germany from Hitler. This is absolutely, unequivocally not true. We went to war against Germany, we pursued a policy of “unconditional surrender”, then we defeated Germany and accepted that surrender. We no more liberated Germany than we liberated Hiroshima.

* Many thanks to my friend David for articulating the original argument and allowing me to publish it here.