08 April 2006
The Lesson of Tal Afar
In his April 10, 2006 New Yorker article, George Packer makes it clear that the best person to help George Bush achieve his definition of victory in Iraq is probably Saddam Hussein. Condoleeza Rice’s goal of delivering a foundation for stability in Iraq will probably not be possible with that country’s sectional and sectarian divisions in the absence of Saddam’s genius for brutal oppression.
But let us give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt-- let us say that the reason they forced themselves to believe they could establish democracy in Iraq is that they truly think that is the only way to prevent its becoming an Islamic terrorist base. If they are wrong, what other solution could work? Total sequestration of the Islamic world? That would make Western secular society blithely independent of political and social events in the Middle East, but would be costly and technologically premature until alternate sources of energy are developed. Is it even possible on a globe where communications barriers have been nearly eliminated?
A more realistic strategy might be economic development of the Islamic world. This could aim to build commitment to common values with the West among radical fundamentalists. However, that too would be costly, requiring the deferral of returns on investment in trade and energy extraction until the benefits from reduced threats of terrorism are realized. Moreover, it would require the trade of what would amount to amnesty for terrorists in exchange for their collaboration by joining the global economic system.
The instigators of the Iraq invasion will be very stubborn in resisting this sort of exchange, and the disorganized leadership of radical Islamic fundamentalism will be even less likely to make such a deal. And yet the cards seem to be favoring the latter; so we must begin work now if an accommodation is to be achieved. Victory in traditional secular terms will never be achieved.
In his April 10, 2006 New Yorker article, George Packer makes it clear that the best person to help George Bush achieve his definition of victory in Iraq is probably Saddam Hussein. Condoleeza Rice’s goal of delivering a foundation for stability in Iraq will probably not be possible with that country’s sectional and sectarian divisions in the absence of Saddam’s genius for brutal oppression.
But let us give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt-- let us say that the reason they forced themselves to believe they could establish democracy in Iraq is that they truly think that is the only way to prevent its becoming an Islamic terrorist base. If they are wrong, what other solution could work? Total sequestration of the Islamic world? That would make Western secular society blithely independent of political and social events in the Middle East, but would be costly and technologically premature until alternate sources of energy are developed. Is it even possible on a globe where communications barriers have been nearly eliminated?
A more realistic strategy might be economic development of the Islamic world. This could aim to build commitment to common values with the West among radical fundamentalists. However, that too would be costly, requiring the deferral of returns on investment in trade and energy extraction until the benefits from reduced threats of terrorism are realized. Moreover, it would require the trade of what would amount to amnesty for terrorists in exchange for their collaboration by joining the global economic system.
The instigators of the Iraq invasion will be very stubborn in resisting this sort of exchange, and the disorganized leadership of radical Islamic fundamentalism will be even less likely to make such a deal. And yet the cards seem to be favoring the latter; so we must begin work now if an accommodation is to be achieved. Victory in traditional secular terms will never be achieved.
Comments:
Post a Comment
