Iraq’s Best Chance

Juan Cole relays, from reporter Liz Sly in Baghdad, what looks to me like good news. (Allow for my low expectations),. She writes about the enthusiasm of the Shiites for the elections. She reports a widespread attitude among Shiites:

"This election, for me, will be the happiest moment in my life, because it means we will end the occupation," said Ahmad al-Asadi, who sells mobile phones from a little store alongside the Kadhimiya mosque, a Shiite shrine. That's how Shiite leaders are pitching the vote: as a chance to end America's military presence in Iraq peacefully, through the ballot box. It also is a chance for Iraq's long-downtrodden Shiites, who account for 60 percent of the population, to throw off centuries of oppression by the Sunni minority and take a commanding role in the country's government.

Cole comments:

It does seem likely that if the US beats down the Baathists enough to permanently defang them, the Shiites are likely simply to toss the Americans out after they take power (assuming that there is a real election, and Allawi is not simply installed as a US puppet [again]).

A predominantly Shiite (and strongly nationalistic) regime may be the best outcome we can expect. Has Bush learned enough in Franklin’s “dear school” (i.e., bitter experience) to be sensible and bow out gracefully?

Since guerrilla war is about intelligence and driving a wedge between the population and the guerrillas, there is a fair chance that a regime which enjoys real legitimacy can restore order fairly quickly once the occupation is ended. At all events, it is hard to see a more promising path.

Of course if the new regime can’t get along with other ethnic groups then the civil war will go on, with or without American involvement.

Geras on Iraq: Just Wars Come in Bundles

The best thing in this Geras post is the link to an essay by Michael Walzer, who proposes that we think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as four wars going on in parallel. Two of these are just wars: the Israelis’ war for security within Israel’s borders, and the Palestinians’ war for a viable state. The two unjust wars are: the war to wipe Israel off the map, and the Likudniks’ war for a Greater Israel. Walzer’s idea, crudely summarised, is that we should support the two just wars and oppose the others.

Geras doesn’t try to apply this approach to the Iraq conflict, but let’s see what happens if we do: there is, arguably, a just war to introduce democracy; an unjust war to extend American power in the region; a just Iraqi independence struggle; and an unjust war aimed at establishing a new tyranny. This last comes in several varieties: theocratic Sunni and Shiite, secular Baathist; but they are all unjust because of their ultimate aims.

It is easy to see one reason why Geras doesn’t go down this road. If he confronts the fact that some of America’s war aims are unjust, while some of the insurgents’ demands are just, he will have to re-think his easy condemnation of the anti-war crowd.

(Via Crooked Timber. Majikthese takes up the topic. Where were philosophy students like her when I was young?)

Power Politics and Schoolyard Morality

A curious quirk of human nature is that we like to feel we are in the right, even in the bloody arena of power politics where being in the right gets you precious little: tea and sympathy perhaps, maybe even a UN resolution deploring the other guy’s aggression. The result of this need to consider oneself virtuous is that people come up with some pretty weird arguments to support their side. Many of these are variants on familiar schoolboy excuses: he hit me first; he asked for it; everybody does it. It gets embarrassing to hear this stuff at times.

Here is an interesting example. Volokh Conspirator David Bernstein takes Juan Cole to task for alleged ignorance of his country’s history: “I guess Juan's never heard of the Mexican-American War.” The basis for this remarkable deduction is a rhetorical question by Cole:

I received a very weird phone call from a prominent Jewish-American investigative journalist the other night. He kept muttering about bias against Sharon and how the Israeli security wall is no different from the wall near the Rio Grande (which isn't true: did the US annex Mexican land to build that?)

The answer to Cole’s question is, of course, no; the US did not annex Mexican land for wall-building purposes. Cole knows that, I know that and even David Bernstein knows that: “the U.S. action against Mexico was an aggressive action taken against a sovereign state and largely motivated by ‘Slave Power’ interests.” Those interests did not require the building of a wall.

So Bernstein himself confirms Cole’s version of American history while simultaneously proving to his own satisfaction that the Cole is an ignoramus. Read his post to see how he manages it. His main aim however is to defend the Israelis’ right to build the wall wherever it wants to:

To say these are "Palestinian lands," as I hear so often, is thus something of a misnomer, equivalent to saying that the lands that the U.S. conquered in the Mexican-American war were "Indian lands." When Israel went to war in 1967, the "Occupied Territories" belonged to Egypt and Jordan, respectively, neither of which showed any inclination to treat these territories as the home of a future Palestinian state. Jordan, in particular, had grave conflicts with Yasser Arafat and the emerging Palestinian leadership, resulting in the Black September War of 1970, and didn't give up its claim to the West Bank areas until the 1980s. Israel made a grave mistake in not reaching a deal with the relatively reasonable Jordanians, and found themselves instead having to deal with the incredibly corrupt and mendacious Arafat instead.

In any event, Israel won these lands in a war of self-defense, and certainly has no moral obligation to do anything in particular with them, unless it serves Israel's own interests, as a stable peace deal certainly would. But commentators like Cole, who distort Israeli history as easily as they remain ignorant of American history, hardly shed any light on the subject.

Leaving aside the obvious point that, however brutally America came by its enormous territory, the location of the Mexican border is not currently in dispute, the kernel of the argument is: the Arabs hit the Israelis first; and America does what it likes with the land it grabbed, so why shouldn’t Israel?

He hit me first; he asked for it; everybody does it. Most arguments about international relations are on much the same level.

Instapundit's Sad American

A link from Instapundit to this anonymous blog caught my eye. The writer purports to be a swing voter whose vote might easily have gone to the Democrats. But it rings false, as you will readily see. What interests me is that a Republican activist should think that the persona adopted is a convincing one. The writer portrays herself as a craven coward with a morbid sensitivity to the way she is seen by Democrats. This, apparently, is how Republicans think centre-left libruls see themselves. In that sense it is quite revealing.

I added my two cents’ worth to the comments, but since it was a long way down I may as well replicate my reply here. I see from my comments box that at least one reader liked what I had to say. Ah, the satisfactions of authorship!

You are, indeed, one sad American. Sad, and so very scared: you cast your vote “in fear, trepidation, and trembling”; Falwell and Robertson scare you; Ashcroft scares you; the PNAC essays scare you. You are even scared by references to the opinions of the rest of the world – because that leads to pointless pain; from which we can probably conclude that pain scares you too.

Are you, perhaps, a little too sensitive for this cruel world? You feel Democrats don’t really want your vote. You feel vomited-on when you hear Janeane Garofalo. You feel your intelligence is being insulted by references to John Kerry’s service in Vietnam. You feel, you feel, you feel.... In your late 20’s you feel that you are too young to be so disillusioned. Yet you read quite a lot, so you must know that in many parts of the world infants, especially girls, can be considered quite lucky if they make it to such a ripe old age. You say “pictures of Iraqi children who've lost arms from the bombs my tax dollars bought make me shed tears.” Still, “the war was the right thing to do, given the information we had available at the time the decision was made.” So, for all your tenderness, you can be quite tough-minded when it comes to blowing other people’s limbs off. You see no need whatever to address the rather obvious point that President Bush could have postponed his decision until he had better information. No, no; let’s have no nuance here; that’s too French! Off with their arms!

You remind me of an old Irish saying: it is easy to sleep on another man’s wound. Your sensitivity is remarkably local; did it ever occur to you that the election wasn’t about your feelings?

Not only are you remarkably sensitive and very easily scared; you are quite astonishingly passive. You appeal to the Democrats to bring you the kind of candidate you want. Please forgive my bluntness, for I really don’t mean to hurt your feelings: is there any particular reason why you can’t get up off your lazy butt and campaign for the candidate you prefer? That’s what primaries are for, you know. You don’t have to suffer in your own home listening to those foul-mouthed Democrats using language that would make Dick Cheney blush. If you actually get involved in politics instead of leaving it to others to serve up the sort of candidate you fancy, you may learn how to cope with that “verbal and psychological and emotional savagery” which is better known to the rest of us as the ordinary rough-and-tumble of party politics.

Incidentally, don’t get the idea that I’m campaigning for the Democrats here. By all means join the Republicans and push your agenda there if you prefer. I’m not a Democrat, nor even an American. I am responding because your letter seemed so symptomatic of the sorry state of your once great nation.

Just get stuck in. Your fear will become anger and your anger will become a force. You may even find yourself using foul language about the couch-potatoes who expect party activists to do all the heavy lifting that a healthy democracy requires. But remember: don’t get mad, get even. If you don’t get involved, then frankly you richly deserve your fear and your morbid feelings. If you don’t get involved, and Karl Rove suckers you again in four years’ time, all credit to him. I will have no sympathy whatever for you.

Did they listen to me?

In recent weeks I have been doing something a bit shameful: urging Americans to vote for George W. Bush. In just a few hours I will know whether my efforts have paid off. It started when Daniel Drezner requested advice from his readers. (Sadly my arguments did not persuade him.) Prior to that I had been minding my own business, reluctant to intrude into America’s affairs.

But you ask, isn’t Bush a truly lousy president? Of course he is; so lousy in fact that he has highlighted the need for drastic change in the US political system. Enormous power is placed in the hands of one man and there is every chance that that man will be a self-deceiver, who can neither accept responsibility for his own decisions nor hold his subordinates to account for theirs.

The need for change is already clear, but how is it to come about? Only through a massive build-up of discontent. Now is the time to elect a known lemon; now, while America is powerful enough to blunder into a mess without the risk that other nations will be tempted to take advantage. A generation or two from now, when America's relative postion will surely be much weaker, when China and even India may be serious rivals, a dunce in the oval office will be a threat to the human race.

So for the sake of our grandchildren I urge Americans to vote for Dubya and set in motion the chain of events which will surely bring constitutional reform.

Still, part of me selfishly hopes that Bush will be buried under a Kerry landslide. Do we really want to suffer for our grandchildren’s sake? As an Irish politician once enquired, what has posterity ever done for us?

Modifications

Today Dan Hardie, a frequent poster in the Crooked Timber comment threads, alerted me to the fact that people do actually visit this blog. He liked it but complained about the colour scheme. Hardly the strongest encouragement to resume blogging, but having tinkered with the settings I might as well lob in a post or two.

As well as changing the colours I have abandoned the Longinus pseudonym. There is no real reason for bloggers to be anonymous, unless they live in a police state or want to say rude things about the boss. But I have let the name of the Blog stand. As I remarked at the outset, the predicament of first-century Greeks had a lot in common with that of Europeans today. Their great days of expanding human knowledge, enslaving their neighbours and slaughtering each other were behind them. The mighty empire which had supplanted them was busy subjugating Mesopotamia. Plus ça change.

The Mullahs’ Bomb

From an interesting piece in Defense Watch by William S. Lind, a veteran defense policy analyst (some blog or other drew attention to it but I can’t rmember which one):

There is little doubt that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, one that is operating under forced draft to produce a nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. Iran, along with everyone else in the world, knows that the best way to be safe from an American attack is to have nukes. Even the most howling neo-cons show little appetite for a war with North Korea.

The problem is that, while an Iranian nuclear capability may be directed at deterring the United States, it also poses a mortal threat to Israel. Israel is not known for sitting quietly while such threats develop. It is a safe bet that Israel is planning a strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities, and that such a strike will take place. The question is when.

Is it really such a safe bet? Admittedly I’m no defense analyst but I can’t see much sense in hitting known facilities unless your knowledge is pretty comprehensive.

I’m skeptical. My guess is that the mullahs will get their bomb without an Osirak-style interruption, but the diplomacy may be quite intense.

Lind’s remarks prompt a question: does “everyone else in the world” really grasp the point that “the best way to be safe from an American attack is to have nukes”?

My strong impression is that Americans have not really taken that point on board.

Darfur: Frog-bashing update

Front Page Mag says:

France’s deliberate obstructionism reaches new depths of despicability, as they announce opposition to UN sanctions against Sudan, and dismiss claims of genocide

Instapundit asks:

Has France ever met a murderous regime it didn't like?

This is evidently based on a BBC (hiss! hiss!) report:

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

But according to Reuters, France is not causing the US any problem at the UN:

At initial negotiations on a U.S.-drafted resolution on Thursday, China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria, Brazil and others were wary of any embargoes, arguing it would be more helpful to get Khartoum's cooperation than force it into a corner, participants in the meeting said.

Europeans, including Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Romania, supported the Bush administration in the 15-member council, they added.

I don’t know what is going on in Sudan or in the meeting rooms at the UN. I don’t believe anyone is telling the truth: not the French, not the Americans and certainly not the Sudanese Government.

I suspect very few people really know and the ones who do are not saying. But that won’t stop the shrillies from sounding off about the perfidious French. Does it ever occur to these guys that when a French politician is being interviewed on French radio, answering a question which the BBC does not supply, there might be des nuances involved?

C’est la vie, plus ça change, and all that.