.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Iraq

This quote is everywhere, but it still bears repeating.
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Ayad Allawi(Iraq's former Prime Minister and current leader of the National Iraqi List) told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Out of a really interesting LATimes article on the Bush administration's defining "victory" down from the early claims that the US would defeat the insurgents, to the current plan of handing the problem of the insurgency over to the Iraqis,
"The Sunnis already see us as having chosen sides," said Steven Biddle, a former professor at the U.S. Army War College who is at the private Council on Foreign Relations.

Biddle has argued that by building new Iraqi security forces dominated by Shiites and Kurds, the United States in effect has armed and trained two of the sides in the Iraqi conflict. The Sunnis, he wrote in a recent article, "perceive the 'national' army and police force as a Shiite-Kurdish militia on steroids."

I don't know why, but this AP story on the difficulties Staff Sgt. Douglas Piper has suffered after returning from Iraq with an acrylic eye and brain trauma riveted me.

And, not directly on topic, but surely related to the Iraq conversation, Haaretz, and a couple of other news outlets, are reporting on a new study that claims,
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago. ....

The study also documents accusations that American supporters of Israel pushed the United States into war with Iraq. It lists senior Bush administration officials who supported the war and are also known to support Israel, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and David Wurmser.

5 Comments:

  • Clearing the way for a Greater Zion, we are!

    By Blogger Lew Scannon, at 7:35 AM  

  • Yeah, it's just rare that anybody credible actually says this anymore. The silence among the political elites is evidence of the depth of the influence.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 7:42 AM  

  • I don't know how much you know about Mearscheimer, but he is one of the darkest of the so-called "dark realists" in International Relations. In other words, widely recognized as conservative, and not a pacifist. He was one of the group of conservative realists who came out against the Iraq war. Their position was pretty much, we're not against war, we even recognize that sovereign states will wage preemptive war (or for motivations that others dispute) but this particular war is a bad idea.

    Anyway, Scott Lemieux has a poli sci dissection of the piece that is quite good.

    The thing that is interesting to me, as a "Latin America person" is that this argument is commonly leveled at our Cuba policy. That is, in the two level game of international relations (the systemic level of playingin the international arena and the domestic level where you have to play with your own electorate) it is the domestic concerns that drive the foreign policy. In that case, there are a few eyes that get batted, but not too many. With Israel, the level of politicization makes an argument like Mearscheimer's very difficult. As Lemieux (I think...could be one of the other LGM guys) points out, he was once accused of anti-semitism in the classroom for discussing an analytical criticism of Israeli policy.

    It makes it hard to find middle ground in some areas of ME studies, because of the camps (Binky makes the understatement of the century). That's why someone like Juan Cole is invaluable.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 PM  

  • I generally concur. Quite frankly, it sounds like you're working a level beyond me in complexity.

    I think one of the interesting dynamics of the heavy Israeli sympathetic involvement in US policy is that it soemwhat forces the other side to an extreme against the Israelis.

    The level of influence and the lopsidedness of the public presentation makes the pro Palestinian side more extreme as a reaction which obliterates a rational discussion on the middle ground. I think this is what you're saying in a better way.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:50 PM  

  • Sort of. The politics become polarized, which taints the (separate) policy discussion.

    And in the spirit of polarization, David Duke has come out in favor of the article.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home