No Plan, No Peace
by Gadgie, 29 October 2007
The first part of John Ware’s documentary on Iraq has just been screened. It was wholly damning on the lack of American planning for post-war Iraq. There is a summary here.
It wasn’t a comfort blanket for the conspiracy theorists or for those calling for the removal of troops either. The programme made it clear that American policy was not long-term occupation, but rapid withdrawal and that that was part of the problem. Iraq required greater troop numbers and a long term commitment. The programme’s entire focus was on the lack of preparation for a post-war settlement and it certainly didn’t apologise for the state of Iraq under Saddam. Instead, it detailed the crucial underestimation of the legacy of 36 years of tyranny and the impact of war and sanctions.
The British government does not come out of it unscathed. The historian Charles Tripp repeats his concerns raised in his earlier article in the London Review of Books about the alternative power structures that underpin the insurgency that, “Blair seemed wholly uninterested in Iraq as a complex and puzzling political society, wanting confirmation merely that deposing Saddam Hussein would remove ‘evil’ from the country“. The problem with his disdain is that Saddam’s Iraq was undoubtedly an evil, however, for me, the issue was always going to be the way it should be removed, not the desirability of regime change itself, which was undeniable. Strong principles need to be supported by detailed knowledge and planning if they are to prevail.
My main reservations about the programme so far are that it has not included any Iraqi voices, nor has it mentioned the place where it went right, Kurdistan. The contrast between the Kurdish areas and the main centres of insurgency would seem to be important in understanding the nature of the crisis. (See too Bartle Bull’s more optimistic assessment in the October issue of Prospect). This is the crux of how the media reports Iraq. Peter Beaumont has written in the Observer of the two Iraqs - one a realm of ordinary life with a hunger for democracy and stability, the other a theatre for a bloody power struggle. To focus on either one at the expense of the other is to provide an incomplete picture.
Overall, the image of the supreme incompetence of the American administration, described in the programme as “dysfunctional“, is overwhelming and reminds me of the source of my own misgivings at the time. The second programme is tomorrow and we will see what it says. I sincerely hope that for all the failings that it does not abandon the democratising project and instead urges what many of the contributors to this blog advocate, full support to the Iraqi left and the institutions of civil society, such as trade unions, that are fighting to recover from the crisis and rebuild an Iraq worth having.
Monday 29 October 2007 at 9:00
Ware’s big point is that the planning went out of the window when responsibility for postwar Iraq was passed from Colin Powell and the State Department to Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Handing the job to Rumsfeld was a disaster. What kind of idiot would campaign, in the run -up to war, for responsibility for postwar Iraq to be taken away from Powell/State and be given to Rumsfeld/Defense ?
this kind of idiot:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,896660,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,764610,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/14/do1401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/14/ixopinion.html
Monday 29 October 2007 at 13:09
I saw the programme too, and largely concur with your presentation of it.
Yes, some mention of Kurdistan would have been good, as there is a very real danger of Iraqi Kurdistan unravelling owing to Turkish and Iranian aggression. The planet’s largest nation without a state is being shafted once again.
For all the failings of the coalition in Iraq, I still think it has a chance of turning things around, but only if the politicians listen to the military leaders and non-partisan diplomats who actually understand the situation on the ground. This point was made by a number of commentators featured in yesterday’s programme, but I don’t think it’s quite as simple as a Defense vs State feud.
Blair comes out of it very badly, and rightly so. For a long time now we’ve heard pundits insist that the former PM was trying to reign in a US administration out of control. But where is the evidence of this? From what I can see it’s not just the American government that was/is dysfunctional.
And yes, we do need to hear more Iraqi voices. Many more. It is their country, after all, and we’ve had more than enough of Iraq being used as a proxy for our domestic political battles.
Monday 29 October 2007 at 13:39
Arthur or Martha.
Do I read you right? Are you saying that it was wrong to oppose the intention to replace Saddam with a military hard man? Was Nick Cohen also wrong to argue for a role for Iraqi democrats in a post-war Iraq? Were you in favour of an American-imposed military dictatorship, the sort of cynicism that bedevilled US policy in Latin America?
That is what Nick Cohen was writing about, not an-interdepartmental power struggle, nor the inadequacy of post-war planning.
Though I do not have enough specialist knowledge to be authoritative on this, I got the impression that State Department officials were using the programme to regain their reputation and settle old scores. In doing so, they glossed over many egregious aspects of their cynical ‘realism’, the precise target of these articles.
Monday 29 October 2007 at 14:15
The point is Nick Cohen (following Hitchens) persuaded himself that Rumsfeld was the pro democracy hero, Powell the cynical lets-have-Saddam lite man - but he was utterly wrong, and letting Rumsfeld run the show exacerbated the postwar misery.
While Nick makes the odd noise about “lack of planning” now to excuse the miserable state of Iraq, he was really wrong on this issue as so many others. He very precisely was writing about an inter-departmental power struggle, which he fooled himself into believing was a struggle about principle, and even managed to take the wrong side in that inter departmental power struggle. (Identifying the INC as the “Iraqi Democrats” was a pretty much allied error).
Monday 29 October 2007 at 14:24
“The programme made it clear that American policy was not long-term occupation, but rapid withdrawal and that that was part of the problem. Iraq required greater troop numbers and a long term commitment”
I didn’t see the prog. but this is not exactly news. Eric Shinseki - then Chief of Staff of the Army - testified to congress *before* the invasion that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to stabilise Iraq after the end of major military operations and was effectively fired by Rumsfeld for saying it
Monday 29 October 2007 at 14:45
OK. Go back to the time the articles were written.
You have two options.
1. Support the installation of a military dictatorship.
2. Support an attempt to create a democratic federal Iraq in partnership with Iraqi democrats.
Which one would you choose?
Monday 29 October 2007 at 15:06
You seem completely caught up in Nick’s rhetoric, even though subsequent events show he was wrong - its as if Nick’s mistaken beliefs about the situation in 2003 have more impact on you than what we now know actually happened.
your (1) and (2) are a completely false choice: Powell was actually no less or more interested in democracy than Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld did not unleash some wonderful democracy, he installed a military occupation under a US supremo. the move to a vote (not in itself a democracy, but at least a gesture) came later, as the occupation started to founder. Powell would have done the same. However, at least Powell cared enough about Iraq to actually have some plans to hand for how to try an run an occupation. the real choice in 2003 is wether you want an attempt at an efficient occupation under Powell , or a couldn’t -care-less-”stuff happens” occupation under Rummy.(or of course the third choice of not having the war in the first place)
Monday 29 October 2007 at 16:07
At the time the articles were written that was the choice. Most of the articles you have linked to were pleas to get behind the democratic Iraqi left and to oppose cynical ‘realism’ (and I can assure you that you would have been hard pressed to find anti-war sentiments amongst the Iraqi community here).
Second, Nick Cohen was right about Kurdistan and he drew much of his information from the PUK. The transition worked, despite the general level of incompetence.
Third, the “move to a vote” was more than a gesture it gave Iraq a constitution. Now Nick Cohen is writing to urge us to support the democratic constitution, to oppose the insurgents, the bombers and the beheaders, to support the democrats. Is he right or wrong to do so now?
I hope that at least that is something that we can all agree on.
Monday 29 October 2007 at 16:41
Assure away - I guess that means that Adnan Pachachi, say, or all those Iraqi Communist types did not oppose - or indeed march against - the war in 2003.
Accepting for a moment that the choice was between Rumsfeld and Powell, Defense and State - well Cohen made the wrong choice. The three articles I link to make very clear that he thinks Rumsfeld (mr Torture, it turns out) is the good guy, the man best placed to run the show . Of course you might want to , a la Blair, “move on” now, but then why bother watching a documentary about what happened in the past, when you can live in the eternal sunshine of the spotless future. After all, just because people made ridiculous misjudgements in the past, why should that have any relevance to what they say now
Monday 29 October 2007 at 17:16
I guess that means that Adnan Pachachi, say, or all those Iraqi Communist types did not oppose - or indeed march against - the war in 2003
No. It means that the Iraqi students who I knew and taught saw the demonstrations as being pro-Saddam and were depressed by them (hence the word ‘here’). Not leading figures but ordinary people.
What Cohen has consistently done is to write in support of democracy and against totalitarianism. Was that a mistake in principle? Have you supported anyone who let you down badly? I know I have. Have you voted for people with, if not optimism, but a faint hope and been crushingly disappointed? I certainly have. Have you made misjudgements? I know I have. Has that invalidated your or my opinions for all time?
And so what on earth does your final sentence mean? Should we throw away our democratic principles? Should we fail to support trade unionists? Should we not help education projects? Should we just declare it all a mess and walk away? Or are you just expressing your antipathy to a journalist.
All I can say is that if we do not support those forces of a democratic civil society what sort of a left are we?
Monday 29 October 2007 at 22:34
You have two options.
1. Support the installation of a military dictatorship.
2. Support an attempt to create a democratic federal Iraq in partnership with Iraqi democrats.
[3. (or of course the third choice of not having the war in the first place)]
Which one would you choose?
Easy. Option 1. It punishes the abuse of human rights and mass killings Saddam undertook, as opposed to option 3 that essentially condones Saddam as good enough . And it stood the best chance of stabilising the country in a way that option 2 was unable to (there were never enough Western forces to institute a force of occupation, especially not when hostile neighbouring states could not be engaged for political reasons).
Once stability is assured then pressure can be brought to bear as to democracy. And if the isolationist/withdrawl team took power in the interim the mass slaughter that is the likely result in a weak Iraqi state could be avoided by the Iraqis having a strong enough government to protect them.
What choosing option 2 meant was using not enough troops (and taking casualties) to protect a weak Iraqi government and it will require more of the same for 4 or 5 years to come. And this is a big problem because some people think 4 or 5 years spent protecting Iraq is an unacceptable amount of time at an unacceptable cost and if they have they have their way Iraq will be abandoned - leading to a hostile strongman (or 3) who will be at least as hostile as Saddam (and tens of thousands of Iraqis will be killed in their rise to power).
However now we are locked into option 2, so it is best it continues.
All I can say is that if we do not support those forces of a democratic civil society what sort of a left are we?
You’d support strength and stability amoung friends whilst trying to assist them towards democracy. You would not be a leftist, but you’d still be a democrat by supporting the other forces of a democratic society - the establishment of middle and merchant classes.