I cross posted my post of today “Reality Check” at The Moderate Voice. Several people (already) responded. I would like to point out two - especially two - comments which basically prove my point. The first is a comment left by JLedell (an American):
The world thinks America’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I think you and most Americans now agree with that assessment. Our diminished image in the world is a direct result of that MISTAKE.
Most Americans believe in American Exceptionalism and so does much of the rest of the world, even though they might not like it. However, even Exceptionalism has it’s limits. It simply may not be within our power to “fix” Iraq. The problem may be too big and too far gone for even the US with it’s vast resources to fix.
I will only quote this part because it is my intention to make you all think about arguments against withdrawal that are ignored (blowback etc.). Now, let me make one thing very clear: the rest of the world does not believe in American exceptionalism. If there is one thing most people in Europe and the Mideast think about America, it is that America has too much power, and that America is arrogant. “American exceptionalism” is something only Americans and perhaps some Eastern Europeans believe in, the rest of the world has to do its best not to laugh out loud when Americans say that their country is a beacon of hope, an example to the world. Yes, this sounds harsh, but if you want to understand the world, you have to understand this.
Let me therefore quote another European who goes by the commenter name of Lynx (she’s half-American, lives in Spain):
As a Spanish-American hybrid who thinks she knows the general feeling of Spaniards pretty well I must coincide completely with Michael. You can argue about whether it’s fair for the US to be blamed, you can argue whether avoiding such blame is A- possible and B- worth the sacrifice in lives/economy, but you can’t really argue that it won’t happen. It will, absolutely. You are ALREADY blamed for the mess in Iraq, OF COURSE you will be blamed if it gets worse once you leave.
American exceptionalism is at work here. Please remember that ONLY the US automatically thinks the US is the good guys. You start with that assumption, and your conclusions are influenced by it. The rest of the world (except, maybe, Israel) does not automatically start with the US being the good guys, and a good deal of it (most especially in the Middle East) begin thought with exactly the opposite assumption. Again, you can argue about whether this is fair, but not that it isn’t real.
Think of it this way. Another country, say Japan starts a war with North Korea. They said the threat of an attack was imminent and implied Kim had ties to the nerve-gas attacks on their subways. They totally ignore calls from the rest of the world (including the US) to wait, that the evidence is not that clear, and invade anyway. Fast forward 5 years and the whole thing is a mess. Chaos reigns in North Korea as Japanese troops and what is left of their allies (most of whom have already left) struggle to maintain even a modicum of order. The North Korean “government” is fairly useless, as the elimination of Kim Jong Il from power (and subsequent trial and embarrassing public execution) has created a succession war of power amongst strongmen of a country that has very little in the way of democratic process, and whose stability depended exclusively on the iron grip of it’s dictator. People are hungry and blame the Japanese troops for eliminating what little stability they had, and alternate fighting them with fighting other factions for control of terrain and precious food. Japan has sustained many victims, but still 100 times fewer than the North Koreans, and decides that they’ve had it, they’re leaving. Having lost their previous taste for war they leave, and what little order was left in North Korea disappears, together with the steady supply of food that was all keeping many displaced North Koreans alive. The country plunges into all out civil war and famine and the world (including the US) condemns Japan for skirting it’s responsibility to the North Koreans after destroying their country. Koreans, of course, will hate the Japanese for generations to come, and other Asian nations close to Korea take note of the situation as well.
Does it sound like a wild fantasy to you? Do you honestly think it would be wrong to condemn Japan in those circumstances? The US is given special consideration and understanding ONLY by the US. To the rest of the world you are not special, you are not the Boss, you are another country, albeit a very powerful one with a tendency to get in trouble.
Mind you, I don’t see any good way out of this situation. I don’t think staying is going to help much unless some radical genius change takes place. With the current strategy all you are doing is putting off the inevitable (more) massive bloodbath. I wish I knew a way to avoid it, but I really don’t. Whenever the US leaves, now or in 10 years, if there is massive loss of life, they will be blamed. They started the mess, it’s only natural that they get blamed for how it ends, even if there is no way they could have possibly avoided it once the invasion and chaos had set in. In that case the only option is to leave and suck it in, put diplomatic relations into overdrive and hope against hope that the blame blows over quickly. It might in the West, but I fear that the consequences of this in the Middle East will be felt for decades to come.
Now - as far as I know, we are the only two Europeans who commented, and both of us should be consider pro-US. We do not agree with the above, but we do know that this is how the far majority of Europeans and Arabs will respond.
Again: I am not offering a solution here - my goal is merely to make you all think of something, of a downside, that is being ignored in most American media.
Wow.
We need this wake-up call. Let me ask this: If Bush went to the EU and/or UN with hat in hand and said, “You know, I created this mess; I’m sorry. We screwed up. But now it’s a mess that will impact all of us. I can’t sustain current levels of American involvement, but if there isn’t some sort of outside involvement, the place will disintegrate. America humbly asks for the world’s help in fixing a mess we created, and we are willing to talk about compromises on our part, to make sure this becomes a collective win-win, rather than lose-lose.” If he did that, or sent an envoy to do that, do you think the world would help?
Pete good question: will that work now? 2 years ago: yes. 1 year ago: I’d give it the benefit of the doubt. Today?
Difficult. Extremely difficult. Bush would have to himself (an envoy certainly won’t be enough) and he should be as humble and generous basically, as you indicate in your post. It might work then.
If I were American / an american politician, this is basically what I would try as well and I would give them something in return for their help.
The problem with Bush et al., though, is that they ignored the international community, were arrogant, didn’t want to reward allies etc.
But - i won’t say “yes” but I do think that it might work.
Sure would be nice if we had leaders with the guts and intelligence to do that wouldn’t it?
How about the leaders of the UN /EU going to the WH and saying “You’ve created a worldwide problem and we’re going to solve it.”
“Again: I am not offering a solution here - my goal is merely to make you all think of something”
OK…so you didn’t ask those Dutchmen what America should do then?
[...] P. F. van der Galien has today published a couple of posts calling for a “reality check” on Iraq. Acknowledging that most of the world opposed [...]
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with this critique in its current form. I think it is hypocritical for Europe to criticize America for not listening to Europe when the bottom line is that Europe has nothing constructive to say at this point.
Jason I already responded to your post at TMV.
It’s irrelevant whether you think europe is hypocriticaly or not, I’m only telling you how the world will perceive this, and what - therefore - the long term consequences will be for America. I’m asking you all to take that into consideration. You don’t even want to take it into consideration when talking about Iraq because you believe Europe is hypocritical. Fine. You can say Europe is hypocriticaly (it is) but that does not change reality.
Have it your way and see what the blowback will be.
Good luck America ‘alone.’
I always maintain that if we want the truth about Iraq we must listen to those on the ground.
This is another case of “if we want the truth of how the international community will see us, we must listen to those that are there”, in this case, YOU.
Americans cannot see ourselves objectively, which is why I believe Jason is fighting your words so hard, he cannot admit the truth of what you are saying.
Thank you for pointing out an unpopular but TRUE aspect of a rapid, premature withdrawal.
You have a wonderful blog and although there are times I vehemently disagree with you, I always say, clearly, that your views are honest, they do not change as the polls do and I value your take on things whether I agree with them or not.
Great job.
Initial Benchmark Assessment Report : Iraq
Either way, as we explained yesterday, the Democratically controlled Congress and Senate will do exactly as they did with the emergency supplemental bill, and pass legislation with some sort of timelines, which the President will veto, again, and whi…
[...] seem to have hit a nerve; quite some people responded so I posted a follow-up, which can be read here. I sincerely hope all of you will read both posts, because there is something missing from the [...]
Michael,
This is something that many of us have not been able to get through to other Americans. I lean to the idea of pulling enough troops out and redeploying the others where they are not so visible and are not adding to the war because of hatred for America. If the violence escalates to the point they have to go back in, so be it. It would require a lot of preliminary and continuous negotiations.
My reality check on it is the amount of work and time it takes to withdraw them and redeploy. As nimble as the initial war appeared, it had been in preparation for a long time with material and support bases built up especially in Kuwait. Even with that and the bases in Iraq, it is not something that can be done without considerable planning, coordination and time.
I also think it would not be good to try to look at what has happened between America and Vietnam in terms of blowback. Vietnam is a very different country and the whole situation for us being there was quite different. The Middle East community is completely different than SE Asia and this is complicated by the issues of religion, oil, empire building and an arrogance that is quite different than what I think was perceived as driving the Vietnam interference.
Ultimately, this is what I think has Bush incapable of accepting the problem, making any attempt to change his tactics, or acknowledge he needs help. It is just going to be so horrible and so next to impossible to stop or significantly change what he has created and allowed to grow, without a lot of skills, integrity and courage he does not have.
Personally, I think Bush was so convinced God was on his side, he could ignore the generals, scholars and diplomats who warned him what would happen. Now he seems to be waiting for God to prove him right.
Anyway, thanks for trying to give Americans a view from outside our blinded, filtered and sanitized perspective. The reaction is no surprise.
I missed this whole series of posts while I was on vacation, and I’m not sure whether or not it’s constructive for me to poke into it now or not but will nonetheless try.
I was struck by in2thefray’s comment #4 in this thread:
Which also, it seems to me, ties in with Jason’s critique, that criticism isn’t helpful unless it also offers suggestions for alternatives.
The trouble seems to be that so many people assume that the Iraq problem is insoluble. Under the current scenario of the US going it alone, it most likely is, but with more resources it is not so. If the whole world community would unite, if EU would see itself “paying forward” on the Marshall Plan, if the EU and UN would do as in2thefray suggests, it’s quite possible that Europe would gain world stature in the way it has sought to do ever since the collapse of the USSR. It would also, of course, be acting in its own interests to keep Islamist terrorism from fomenting in its backyard and on its own turf among its immigrant population.
Instead though, another commenter suggested that this could only happen if Bush eats crow, and Michael suggests that it may be too late even if he were to do so. I ask though, why is this necessary? Why shouldn’t Europe step up even if America won’t humble itself? America could easily have adopted a similar stance during and after both of the world wars; she could have said to Europe, “this is another fine mess you’ve gotten yourself into”, but that didn’t happen, did it?
Sorry, but this seems too much to me as Europe resenting America’s stature instead of acknowledging what America did to earn that stature. If Europe wants to prove that America is not exceptional, then perhaps Europe should take this opportunity to do what America did for her during the last century. Instead of trying to tear down America, Europe could do something positive to promote her own prominence and earn respect.