Reality Check
July 12, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën
Yesterday, I published a post in which I criticize Thomas Friedman’s latest column in the New York Times. In it, Friedman argues that there are only two options remaining: all in or all out. He ignores the fact that the world will blame the US for what happens. He ignores the fact that the US will appear weak. He ignores the fact that no country will fear American power as much as it once did. So - I criticized Friedman for not taking the blowback into account. When I did, American readers responded, both here and at my own blog, by saying, basically: “how long do you want us to stay, we cannot solve this,” and “the anti-Americanism will go away after a few years,” etc.
So - I thought, let me talk with some Dutch people about this. I asked 8 people: only one of them supported the war in Iraq, the other opposed it from the get-go. I asked them what they thought would happen in Iraq when the US withdraws. The unanimous answer: genocide. Who, I asked, would you blame? America or Iraq? The answer: America. So, I also asked them what they thought Arabs, Muslims and everyone else would think of it. The, again, unanimous answer: everybody will blame America, and it will greatly hurt America’s image.
Now - eight people is not exactly a representative poll, but I want to make something clear to all of you: I strongly believe that this is how most people will look at it. Mass genocide will be blamed on the US. Why? If the US would not have attacked, Iraq would still be stable. Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but most people do not look at that (besides, they will also argue that life under Saddam was probably not worse that it is today) - most people simply look at the result.
Now, many Americans argue “we have to bring our troops home: they should not die in a far away country, if we cannot win / bring stability any time soon.” To Americans, this sounds logical. To 5.5 billion other people, this sounds extremely egoistical. The other citizens of the world say “3500?? are you kidding me? Tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and if you withdraw prematurely, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more will die, and you complain about 3500??? You started this war in the first place.”
I realize that the way I choose to word this might anger quite some Americans and I thought about bringing it less bluntly, but I am not a politician: I am a blogger. And I am simply trying to explain something important to you all (the majority of whom are Americans). To those living in the other countries I ask this: don’t you agree with this post? If you look around and ask other people, isn’t what I wrote the answer the far majority gives? Yes it is harsh, but 300,000 Iraqis killed (quite a random ‘in between’ number) is quite harsh as well.
Another commenter asked (paraphrasing): how long would you want us to stay? 10 years, 20 years?
The answer of the world: as long as it takes. Again: you are responsible.
He also said why don’t you all send more troops? Two things:
- America did not want international organizations involved when the war started. Now, still, they do not want many countries involved, and if they do, they only want it because Americans are dying and its better for domestic purposes that foreign soldiers die (again, I’m not a politician)
- You started this war. What gives you the right to tell the world that it should send soldiers just because your refused to send enough / stay as long as it takes / work with other countries?
Please understand, I am not trying to anger all of you as much as I possibly can - I am trying to make you understand how the world perceives this debate in America.
When you talk about what the US should do, you have to take this post into account. Another commenter argued that the blowback would be temporarily. It would ‘fade away’ within a couple of years time. Right. Reality check: as one of the Dutch people I asked about that comment said, “That’s ridiculous. It will increase hatred for America for generations to come.” Again, this is basically what I am saying about this as well: it will not ‘fade away.’ The world - especially Arab peoples - will make it part of its collective memory and it will be used against the US for decades, possibly even longer. When talking about the Mideast, do not forget that they have quite a different culture than we in the West have. Holding grudges is something Arab peoples are quite good at. And this time, for quite a good reason.
My American friends, you must look at how the world will perceive an early withdrawal and a possible genocide. Take it into account. And then ask yourself: is it worth the risk? I am not saying that everyone should conclude “no, it is not worth the risk. We should stay with, say, 75000 troops.” I am saying, however, that you should be able to deal with this, that you should take this into account. Too many Americans seem to live in some kind of bubble, shielded from the world. Too many Americans seem to have no idea how the world operates, how the world thinks. Take it into account and then come up with a plan.
But one thing should be very clear: total withdrawal will not ‘restore america’s image’ or show that America is quite moral etc. No, it will cause great, great damage.
Of course withdrawal won’t make europeans like us. And of course they’ll blame us: we’re to blame, there’s no denying it.
But I’m old enough to remember Europeans enraged at our handling of Vietnam. They got over it. And I recall frequent eruptions of outrage over our handling of Cold War issues. They got over it. And of course many Europeans have been more or less steadily outraged at our relationship with Israel. Life goes on.
We’re the hyperpower, as our French friends like to say, and that carries with it some risk that lesser powers will dislike the way we handle things. Sometimes it’s deserved, sometimes it’s not. But Europe’s opinion, while it should not be ignored, is not the largest consideration. I don’t think we should take casualties in the faint hope that Europeans will despise us a bit less.
Does it matter what we think when an incompetent is in charge of the American military?
Andy: no. You all elected him
Twice.
Michael: I understand but… do you think that the people in the Mideast will forget that as well? Or do you think they will remember it for decades and that it will be used as a terrorism recruitment tool successfully for years, even decades?
What? Americans ignorant of other countries? Surely that can’t be!
I wonder, though, did you ask these 8 Dutchmen what America should do then? Though given that there aren’t any really good answers, perhaps that would be an unfair question.
Though being Dutch perhaps their thoughts were more along the lines of “How can we make a profit from this situation? Promote the planting of tulips to reduce violence? Hmm…”
There, you see, Americans are ignorant of other countries!
Michael:
Of course they’ll remember it for decades. Of course it will stain our honor and diminish our power. This is why I’ve spent the last 4 years yelling that we needed to abandon the Rumsfeld-Bush folly of fighting a vital war as though it was a minor skirmish.
We never increased the size of our military, we never really enlisted the American people in this endeavor, we never even tried for durable bipartisan support, and now we don’t have a winning option. The military is stretched too thin and the American people have given up in disgust. I mean, look where we are: the most fervent war supporters are left to plead that we hang on and hope the Iraqi government steps up. I said three years ago we’d lost the strategic momentum, and that we’d put ourselves in a position where we were entirely dependant on the Iraqis to rescue us from a mess we made on the theory that we were rescuing them.
This is not a surprise. This is what happens when you fight a half-assed war. Honestly, what did you think was going to happen when you saw that we couldn’t even control looting in Baghdad, or turn the electricity on? Go to war or don’t go to war, but don’t go half way to war.
I have to mostly agree with Reynolds. And MvDG you and I see quite on similar levels about this mess. But to counter with an alternate point of view.
In the other thread you put
And in this one where it is put
I do not disagree with either one at all. But in the US - for decades there have been two main points of view ( - and of course smudges in-between.)
First is we provided for Europe’s defense for decades, those countries did not step up to the plate to provide for themselves - yet - as Harm de Blij puts - the moment the wall came down there were complaints of American Imperialism. And like James Baker said - nobody wants America to be the worlds police - but who does everyone call when they need a cop.
At the same time - through today we’ve been giving money left and right. There are constant calls for the US to give yet more money, do more things. Sort of like, we can buy our way out of the American Hatred. I recall seeing Anti-American slogans everywhere in Berlin - when the wall was still up - a city that would not have remained as it were without America. And nobody likes the biggest guy on the block. No matter how much we spend or give. We constantly see so-called allies voting against us time after time - in favor of their own countries interests while blaming the US of acting in it’s interests.
The other side being much more of a - well motherly type. That America owe’s the world more in aid, money. That we should do whatever we can to win the world over.
IMO - the reality is somewhere in the middle. Yes we should act in our Countries own interests, yet at the same time - in the words of Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility. Diplomacy, compromise, understanding has been lost ever since the Marshall plan ended. - probably even before then.
But in either school of thought. You also need to understand that the world has shown America - time after time after time again, that we can buy world opinion. That is a mindset we are used too. This is where I agree with Reynolds - for the world has never proven that wrong.
Really? Is that true? I don’t think it’s true and especially not in the Mideast.
Also - I do not disagree with you in your criticism of Europe, but that’s not the point of this post.
Mideast - maybe not, but in general yes. Look at the past UN items we’d want passed, at times you’d see more aid going to a country - and we’d get a vote.
You and I agree about the dangers of pulling out. But the other portion of American image - I think it very much does. Europe has not shown us any different over the past number of decades.
So your point is not that you can buy world opinion, it is that you can buy the support (in the short run) of foreign governments?
There is a difference you know. Do that for a long time and you will see everywhere what you see today in the Mideast (democracy means anti-Americans taking over).
Right - and in many cases - as studies have shown - governments can steer their publics opinion one way or the other.
I’m not saying I agree with what has been done since WW2, but it has been what was done - and the world has been a willing partner in it.
Going to the UN and using the standing resolutions was the US asking others to take part.Asking Turkey to allow the 4thID to enter from their country was a way the US tried to involve others. Except for China and Russia no other country on the planet can offer force in the numbers the US can. Russia and China at that would have serious logistical issues. I’m not offering this as US bragging. It’s the reality that the contributions of others amounts to little. So we went,we have a level of responsibility.That’s the truth. Everyone else can sod off though if they don’t like how we leave. The worth of others opinions / support/criticism has long lost its value.
In2thefrey: we often agree with each other but… you do realize that Bush nly went to the un because Blair wanted it and didn’t really do his best to get a lot of support.
I’m not trying to turn back time. I’m just saying that in line with the quote the US made efforts.Quality ? Not so much. Expecting the UN to step up to 10 year old resolutions ? Maybe. Caring if they did ? No. Bush also supposedly offered Blair an out,Tony didn’t take it.
[...] 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 [...]
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…