A shift in the Iraq narrative.
With the bombing of the Askariyah shrine in Samarra today, there seems to be a shift in the overall US media narrative on Iraq. A civil war in Iraq that has been largely presented only as a possibility, seems to be transitioning to a presentation that a civil war is imminent, inevitable, or ongoing.
(I recognize that this specific bombing marks an artificial point along a continuum of increasing sectarian violence, but, quite frankly, the narrative presented to the American people is far more important in altering perceptions than the reality.)
If the narrative is changing, this could have major implications on US politics, Iraq policy, and our sense of ourselves as a nation.
What happens to Bush's Iraq policy as it becomes more clear to Americans that there is no nation left to build? Does he stick to his "victory plan?" Are we looking at Nixon in Vietnam? How does that impact broader foreign policy especially in relation to Iran?
Bush has often said that we need to see Iraq through so that we maintain credibility to deter future threats, and yet it was his decision to enter this needless war that seems to have exposed that lack of credibility. Before we invaded Iraq, smaller nations feared us, and now they think of us as a paper tiger.
Beyond the unusable nuclear deterrent, we have offered nations a workable game plan on how to tie down and exhaust the US army.
And what does failure in Iraq mean going forward with the American public when the US has lost two of it's last three major wars? What does that do to our sense as a nation? What impacts does that have?
One of the core philosophical precepts of the Neocons is that ideas can change the world, and in that, I think they're right. They believed that the concepts of freedom and democracy would act to transform the middle east. The jury's still out on that.
What I'm asking today is what would a mass realization of failure in Iraq mean?
Many people already recognize the Iraq war as a failure, so is there really an impact in all this? Using myself as an example, I know that the policy was a failure, but somehow it feels very different today staring the results of that failure square in the face.
I keep thinking I should've done more.
Just some stray thoughts on a cloudy afternoon.
By the way, if you haven't been there yet today, pop by Juan Cole's site, or try Today in Iraq, less interpretation, more facts.
(Later: Looks like I'm not the only one to notice the change in tone. Also, sorry if this post was a bit of self indulgent navel gazing, but somehow today I was hit with the reality of all these eventualities and what they really are going to look like. Today, for the first time, I started to see the rippling implications of George Bush's failed war of choice. What we've done to the people of Iraq is horrific. What we've done to ourselves is shameful.)
(I recognize that this specific bombing marks an artificial point along a continuum of increasing sectarian violence, but, quite frankly, the narrative presented to the American people is far more important in altering perceptions than the reality.)
If the narrative is changing, this could have major implications on US politics, Iraq policy, and our sense of ourselves as a nation.
What happens to Bush's Iraq policy as it becomes more clear to Americans that there is no nation left to build? Does he stick to his "victory plan?" Are we looking at Nixon in Vietnam? How does that impact broader foreign policy especially in relation to Iran?
Bush has often said that we need to see Iraq through so that we maintain credibility to deter future threats, and yet it was his decision to enter this needless war that seems to have exposed that lack of credibility. Before we invaded Iraq, smaller nations feared us, and now they think of us as a paper tiger.
Beyond the unusable nuclear deterrent, we have offered nations a workable game plan on how to tie down and exhaust the US army.
And what does failure in Iraq mean going forward with the American public when the US has lost two of it's last three major wars? What does that do to our sense as a nation? What impacts does that have?
One of the core philosophical precepts of the Neocons is that ideas can change the world, and in that, I think they're right. They believed that the concepts of freedom and democracy would act to transform the middle east. The jury's still out on that.
What I'm asking today is what would a mass realization of failure in Iraq mean?
Many people already recognize the Iraq war as a failure, so is there really an impact in all this? Using myself as an example, I know that the policy was a failure, but somehow it feels very different today staring the results of that failure square in the face.
I keep thinking I should've done more.
Just some stray thoughts on a cloudy afternoon.
By the way, if you haven't been there yet today, pop by Juan Cole's site, or try Today in Iraq, less interpretation, more facts.
(Later: Looks like I'm not the only one to notice the change in tone. Also, sorry if this post was a bit of self indulgent navel gazing, but somehow today I was hit with the reality of all these eventualities and what they really are going to look like. Today, for the first time, I started to see the rippling implications of George Bush's failed war of choice. What we've done to the people of Iraq is horrific. What we've done to ourselves is shameful.)
posted by mikevotes at
5:04 PM
4 Comments:
You're right. The tone has just changed. How odd, isn't it, that as we pass through the everyday events that become history, we are often caught unawares as to shifts in opinions.
This may very well be the turning point, when the media stops defending permanent deployement to "stop a civil war" and realizes that we've been fighting the civil war- Iraq's Civil War- all along.
But enough of my own navel gazing.
"One of the core philosophical precepts of the Neocons is that ideas can change the world, and in that, I think they're right. They believed that the concepts of freedom and democracy would act to transform the middle east. The jury's still out on that."
I think it would be more accurate to substitute "America" for "the Neocons". This mess all belongs on the Neocon plate, but it should be recognized that the reason they were able to fool a nation is because this nation does beleive in the power of ideas.
Democracy will eventually find its place in the Middle East, I'm sure. But such a radical change in mindsets must come from within the culture of the Middle East. Imposing democracy, as bizarre as that may sound, is exactly what we've acheived in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than waiting for the citizens themselves to reach that critical stage, that breaking point where the people demand a coup, but also demand permanent improvement in their government, we have instead supplanted that productive anger with populist xenophobia.
Iraq is fucked for the next two decades. Yes, there are some al Qaida members there just to shoot up the American infidels, but more importantly, there is a clash between the three Iraqi sects: The Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. Right now, they do not view themselves as citizens of a country Iraq, but rather as members of their religious group.
Until the people of Iraq develop a feeling of just what it is to be Iraqi, as opposed to just Shia or Sunni or Kurdish, there will be no sense of country. That kind of patriotic identity cannot be generated when same country is occupied. Only by withdrawing its forces, and allowing Iraq to stumble down its necessary and difficult journey will there ever be true peace and democracy.
By
Anonymous, at 10:55 PM
Well, this is the first time I've seen "Civil War" in the headlines. I'd say that changes the 'dynamic'.
By
Neil Shakespeare, at 2:25 AM
Yeah, it has been a civil war for awhile. Haven't more Iraqis been dying than anyone?
By
Graeme, at 3:33 AM
That's a really good comment, asinine.
I accept your broadening point on Americans believing in the power of ideas.
And, I think you also hit on one of my underlying beliefs on the ideological errors of this war. Iraqi society had not sufficiently built the broad sel identities of democracy that is necessary before we ripped out all state structure. And, now they have been left with nothing, so it has devolved into a more basic struggle for resource control and through that power.
Neil, I do think this may be a significant shift, although the headlines seem to be trending back away from that this morning.
And, Graeme, I tend to agree, but I was focused far more on the impact of the shift in narrative. For the majority of Americans, Iraq intrudes into their lives, they don't seek information out, which means that that narrative defines their understanding no matter what the realities are or have been.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:52 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home