Iraqi-Slavia

At least someone is thinking seriously about the course to take in Iraq, transcending the facile sloganeering of the Bushies and the muddled mumblings of John Kerry.

Peter W. Galbraith has an essay in the current New York Review of Books that is marked by a rather breathtaking and cool-headed analytical balance as well as an imaginative exit strategy. Liberal Democrat Galbraith has impeccable humanitarian credentials. As detailed in Samantha Power’s Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide, he helped craft legislation that would have cut off U.S. agricultural and manufacturing credits to Saddam Hussein in retaliation for his 1987-1988 attempt to wipe out Iraq’s rural Kurds. The Reagan admin, however, defeated the proposal and handed the Iraqi dictator generous financial support while the regime gassed and executed some 100,000 Kurds. Galbraith sets up his current piece by conceding what the Peave Movement won't i.e. “what went right” with the war:

Iraq is free from Saddam Hussein... Along with Cambodia's Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the two most cruel and inhumane regimes in the second half of the twentieth century. Using the definition of genocide specified in the 1948 Genocide Convention, Iraq's Baath regime can be charged with planning and executing two genocides —one against the Kurdish population in the late 1980s and another against the Marsh Arabs in the 1990s.

But, Galbraith argues, the Bush administration’s Iraq policies are “failing for many reasons.”

First, they are being made up as the administration goes along, without benefit of planning, adequate knowledge of the country, or the experience of comparable situations. …The fundamental problem of Iraq is an absence of Iraqis.

Then comes his novel solution. Neither an orchestrated hand-over of sovereignty by the Bushies to a hastily-constructed, American-picked central government nor an imperial partition. Instead, Galbraith argues for a “three-state solution.” A Swiss or Yugoslavia-type loose confederation that more closely resembles the reality on the ground:

The best hope for holding Iraq together—and thereby avoiding civil war—is to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent possible, the system each wants. This, too, suggests the only policy that can get American forces out of Iraq…The three-state solution would permit the United States to disengage from security duties in most of Iraq.

I can’t do justice to the nuances of his argument in a blog-sized posting. If you are serious about finding a way out of Iraq that does more than abandon its 26 million people, read Galbraith’s entire piece and at least consider his arguments.

Comments

[Marc]

What did u think of her book? It was my favorite last year (and remains in first place this year).

[Michael J. Totten]

Galbraith is a smart (and good) guy. I learned about him when I read Samantha Powers' book and have been watching him since then.

[miklos rosza]

Galbraith's plan sounds very appealing, but I fear that it may be too complex to be explained and "sold" to the common man either in Iraq or the U.S. But if some version of could be finessed into being, I'd cross my fingers and hope for the best.

It's probably too rational to actually happen, though.

[steve]

That said, the confessional divide between Iraq's Arabs is far less than the ethnic gulf between Arabs and Kurds. Democracy requires tolerance and a willingness to compromise. Except tactically, none of these traits is apparent in a political culture (except for the north) which has been ruled by absolutists.

--Does this mean that Galbraith will be calling for a yugoslavia type solution in our good friend Turkey?
Galbraith's argument seems to miss a key problem, Iraqis themselves are opposed to a breakup of Iraq, shia and sunni alike. especially when such valuable resources such as oil are at issue in the country, the prospect of breaking up the country is only more likely to lead to constant resentment and conflict, only now between 'sovereign' nations.

[Dennis Perrin]

While it's nice to see some libs in the educated elite offer their own plans for the future of Iraq (Michael Ignatieff excepted), the planners of the invasion clearly hold different objectives. A three-state solution from those who, for all their lip service, cannot broker a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine? And will each state have a US military presence? What about all those foreign companies itching to get in on the corporate feast (once the killing ends, of course, if it ever does)? How will Turkey view a semi-Kurdistan on its border? And who does Chalabi get to rule?

Don't get me wrong -- it may come down a three-state deal, assuming the US doesn't go the strongman route (Ahmed, your throne awaits) to keep the various nationalisms under heel, just like the good ol' days when Saddam knew his place, before he got greedy and hit the al-Sabah family. In any event, all this presumes that the US desires "democracy" in Iraq, as opposed to, say, a client state that will establish a low-wage zone for global captial.

Galbraith overlooked Suharto's regime in his assessment of late-20 century monsters. From the 1965 coup to the 1975 invasion of East Timor and the US-backed and financed genocidal mass murder there, I'd say our old pal deserves mention with our other old pals, Saddam (till Aug 2., 90, with a brief reunion during the '91 Shi'a uprisings), and Pol Pot (after the 1978 Vietnamese invasion).

[Michael J. Totten]

Marc - "What did u think of her book?"

For some reason I didn't read the last fifth or so. I got distracted and still intend to finish it (along with several others unfinished for no good reason.)

I really liked the majority of it that I did read. Her chapter about Cambodia was particularly chilling. I did not know that Pol Pot evacuated the capital. That was really freaky.

I don't know what her conclusion is, but she and I see eye to eye on Bosnia and that explains one of the reasons I support regime-change in Iraq as well. Though I have other reasons, too, including getting out of Saudi and giving the twisted political culture in the Middle East a good shove.

[steve]

samantha power almost entirely ignores the equally brutal massacres against East Timor committed with the active consent and aid of the US...a classic american liberal approach to the problem of 'genocide', focusing on the genocide the US government prioritises out of largely geo-political considerations...

well...half a million to a million killed by an American ally...why would Power want to make a big deal about that anyway...

[Marc Cooper]

Aha! I see.. Samantha indicts the US for direct complicity in the genocides in Armenia, Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Iraq and Rwanda but then slyly fronts for US imperialism in Indonesia. Why of course! Why didnt I catch this genius-like move by her CIA/DIA/NSA operatives? How silly of me. In the meantime, why dont u read her book instead of throwing brick bats? You might actually learn a thing or two not currently present in your narrow ideological box.

[Dennis Perrin]

And let's not forget that Halliburton worked hand in hand with Suharto, the same Halliburton that is now lauded as a human rights organization by the likes of Hitchens, simply because it's retooling the Iraqi oil industry. I mean, is anyone surprised that Halliburton is doing this? If you're gonna privatize a country's assests for the sake of foreign profit, then of course you rebuild what you helped (through the first Bush admin) destroy. Indeed, this ensures profits for everyone, from military contractors and weapons' makers to the oil companies and their stockholders. Perfectly logical.

Of course, the pro-invasion liberals fantasize that something nobler is taking place. But that's what imperial liberals do.

[steve]

In the meantime, why dont u read her book instead of throwing brick bats?

--i've heard her speak, read her articles, is there really anything new in her books? what i find interesting is that you think there's no problem with an 'expert' on genocide just completely ignoring East Timor...

[Janet]

Assuming that a 3 way partition is politically, religiously, ethnically possible, who gets the oil reserves??

[steve]

whoever agrees to privatize the oil the most, that's who gets it. and they must be a friend of democracy!!

[steve]

Juan Cole in The Nation recently discussed the idea of partition, erherhm, i mean 3 states, in a manner far more historically informed than Galbraith the advocate could ever hope to achieve:

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&c=1&s=cole

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve, you really ought to read people's work before beating them over the head. First Hitchens, now Power. Who's next?

Samantha Power is scathing in her critique of American foreign policy. East Timor wasn't an oversight. She just can't write about everything.

[steve]

Steve, you really ought to read people's work before beating them over the head. First Hitchens, now Power. Who's next?

--uhm, i have, i've read a lot of both actually.
the silly speculation of hitchens on atta about says it all in terms of reaching for any accusation to justify a war against a weak non-threat.
Power's making no mention of East Timor is not an oversight, it actually fits in with her wish to be a 'respectable' genocide scholar...
And she's not a critic of US foreign policy. a critic of certain strategies, but that's about it. A critic of US foreign policy would take on the matter of Rawanda in a fahion more like this:

http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/shalom/ssrwanda.htm

[Marc Cooper]

Steve.. you ought to be careful about what you say in public. You are revealing an immeasurable ignorance about Samantha Power. In your view we would be better off if scathing critics of US complicity in genocide were less "respectable?" Do u have ANY idea how off-kilter that is? One's respectability, as you put it, is hardly a measure of one's insightfulness or integrity. of course, I understand that in your world view ANYONE who is "respectable," especially some egghead like Samantha that works at Harvard, is a priori a craven opportunist seeking approval of the ruling class. Fact is, you fail completely to offer and argued or substantive critique of Power's work. You're a brick bat artist as I said before.

[Michael J. Totten]

The entire argument against what happened in East Timor can be summed up in a single sentence by Christopher Hitchens: "I have never seen anyone argue that the mass murder in East Timor, for example, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall." That line was published, incidentally, four months ago in David Horowitz's magazine Front Page.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11241

You dismiss Hitchens too quickly, Steve. Power, too.

In your view we would be better off if scathing critics of US complicity in genocide were less "respectable?" Do u have ANY idea how off-kilter that is?

--you can't be serious, the price of respectability is to ignore a massacre like East Timor? wow, I guess if someone told you back when that you'd be a lot more respectable as a journalist if you stopped writing all those pesky articles about pinochet...you'd just have stopped on the spot. oops, i'm being off kilter.
-----------------------------------
I understand that in your world view ANYONE who is "respectable," especially some egghead like Samantha that works at Harvard, is a priori a craven opportunist seeking approval of the ruling class.

--not necessarily, for example people like shalom, albert, work at elite institutions of learning and are able to write much more interesting critiques of US policy in Rwanda...
-------------------------------------
Fact is, you fail completely to offer and argued or substantive critique of Power's work.

--Fact is you've failed to respond to an obvious flaw in her work, she ignores the massacre in East Timor, carried out with the active aid and advice of the US...It's almost as if she were writing a book about South American dictators and just, oops, ignored Pinochet...

"I have never seen anyone argue that the mass murder in East Timor, for example, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall."

--now all Hitch has to do is find quotes from Chomsky et al (the targets of that quote) stating that they think AQ's approach is the way to bring about positive social change under capitalism, then his rhetorical argument here might be even relevant. I imagine the relatives of 911 victims who have joined the Peaceful Tomorrows campaign must scratch their heads and wonder what he could possibly mean by that---we're supporting AQ by protesting Bush's wars? Rosa Parks must find such criticisms amusing too actually...the nasty evildoer AQ symp that she is...eh?

[steve]

Marc, since you're so serious about reading carefully, how about explaining how Galbraith's article is much better than Cole's article on partition (or to use the PC phrase--3 state solution)...? Seems to me like Cole's article is a pretty strong refutation of the partition fantasy.

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve - "the price of respectability is to ignore a massacre like East Timor?"

That's not what Marc said, that's what you said. I'll quote you. "Power's making no mention of East Timor is not an oversight, it actually fits in with her wish to be a 'respectable' genocide scholar..."

I don't know why she omitted it, and neither do you. She also omitted Mao Zedong, but that doesn't make me think she's a communist.

[steve]

I don't know why she omitted it, and neither do you. She also omitted Mao Zedong, but that doesn't make me think she's a communist.

--again a weak explanation for her leaving out East Timor. There is no consensus in the US foreign policy establishment that supporting Suharto's genocidal policies was wrong, that might have something to do with her leaving out the East Timor genocide.

I guess the Mao reference was to Tibet...I don't really see 'genocide' as the issue at hand in Tibet, from a far left loonytune extremist Kim Ilsung publication:

http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/2003/200309sep/200309_boyce_State_of_the_Himalayas.htm

and here from another far left loonytune crazy kim ilsung lover (who actually writes accessible articles in public criticising China on its ethnicity policies...but...CRAZY, FAR LEFT!!! LOONY!!!)...

http://www.isop.ucla.edu/asia/article.asp?parentid=2732

[Dennis Perrin]

Power does mention East Timor -- once, on pgs 146-7, and completely whitewashes US involvement by saying that in the face of Suharto's mass murder, "the United States looked away." Bullshit. The US pumped arms and money into Indonesia that was used for the slaughter, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan successfully blocked action in the UN to halt the genocide (which he bragged about in his memoirs). I haven't read the whole book (my wife's reading it), but this part is breathtaking, esp when you consider that Power's tax dollars helped to massacre Timorese. The US was an active agent in that campaign. It's Power who "looks away."

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve: "I don't really see 'genocide' as the issue at hand in Tibet"

I was actually thinking of the extermination of a class, in China proper, which also counts as genocide under the UN's definition as explained by Samantha Power in her book. (See also the crimes of Pol Pot.)

I don't know enough about what happened to the Buddhist monks in Tibet to know if the word "genocide" applies. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

[Bonnie Spolin]

An interesting paragraph on Andrew Sullivan today!

A CNN reporter is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah. His impressions:

I have spoken to a lot [of Marines] who have been engaged in some of these firefights. In fact, I was in one of the combat surgical rooms where they were working on a couple of these guys.
Two of them had been ambushed, not where the main fight is going on tonight, but their unit had been ambushed east of Fallujah. And seven people rolled in. There were two that had gunshot wounds. And they pulled a huge slug, a bullet, out of the leg of one of the Marines. And another one had a bullet wound right through the back.
And, amazingly, they were trying to convince their commanders that they were ready to go and go back out. I have been really surprised at ... the high degree of morale that these Marines have shown. Remember, they have only been here for a month and a half. Many of these units that are here now engaged in the initial invasion last year and were in Iraq for several months.
Now they're back. But they seem to be engaged. They're taking casualties. But it's really surprising. You don't see much head-dragging or anything like that. I mean, you know, what you see is kind of more encouragement for these guys.
And, for example, the one who had the gravest -- the bullet in and out through his back -- was trying to convince his commander that he'd be back. And his commander actually promised him that his spot was still going to be there. Another soldier who was injured in that huge firefight yesterday who I spoke to earlier this morning, he wanted to get back out there. But the only problem was, was that half his shoulder was missing around his firing arm.
But he was convinced he would be able to sit there on a roof and not have to run anywhere and he could contribute that way. So it's been surprising. But ... the Marines that are here certainly appear to be geared up for whatever the future holds.
The proud. The few. Pray for them.