Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The Choice of Freedom

Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.

Histories
-Sallust

I never had a good feeling about Iraq. While I fully support my President, I didn't think the idea of creating a viable democracy in the Middle East was possible at this point in time. I didn't have any hard facts to back up this feeling. It was just how I felt having worked extensively in that area. According to Prof. Francis Fukuyama, the Bush Administration greatly misinterpreted the neocon doctrine which was very suspicious of social engineering. Social engineering, for the most part, doesn't work and it especially doesn't work until a tight timeline.

History has shown that when a nation conquers and attempts to reshape another, it has to break the target country's spirit. Our most successful ventures in nation building were Germany and Japan. There was unrest in both countries as we attempted to remake them but nothing that could be qualified as an active resistance. Certainly things are different in Iraq. Why? The answer lies in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Overwhelming violence used to affect the civilian population is the only way to teach them that violence is not the answer. We didn't do that in Iraq so the people who make us the insurgency still believe that they can achieve something through violence. And we prove them right daily by not responding to their actions forcefully enough.

The problem here is that most people who make policy in the United States have never been in a fight-- much less combat. You learn certain things about life when you grow up fighting that you cannot possibly learn any other way. One of the biggest lessons is that some people will not quit because of pain or discomfort. If you want them to stop, you have to make them. You have to damage them to the point where they simply cannot continue because they will otherwise continue to fight. Another lesson is that courtesy of often confused for weakness. And weakness only emboldens certain types of people to behave even more violently.

Everybody knows that our military is the most powerful in the history of man. That's why we look even more like a bunch of skittish schoolgirls when we hesitate to use it. Alexander the Great was able to secure the peaceful surrender of many cities because of this principle. He offered peace. He offered favor. He even offered gold all to avoid war. Many cities took him up on his offer because they knew what he was capable of were they to behave otherwise. With his razing and salting of Thebes, he showed the ancient world the consequence of defying his generosity. People heard of his victories against numerically superior foes (of the most powerful Army of the ancient world) at Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela. Because he was so merciless in battle, his peace was truly received as a gift and not the sign of a weak spine.

We have this arrogant idea that open debate and mindless bickering will somehow show the Islamo-fascists that we are superior and that our very ability to tolerate dissent is the strength of our system. While this may be in fact true, that's just not the way our enemy will see it. They see it as weakness, plain and simple. Nothing will change that.

Was it a mistake to go into Iraq? I don't think so. It had to be done and if something must be done, it's best to get on with it. We could have handled the aftermath much better and our senior commanders could have paid more attention to the men who had spent their time with their boots on th e groud but otherwise, this is going rather as expected. Once again, if you've never been in a fight, it seems like an easy thing. It is not. Your opponent learns and reacts and has an agenda all his own. You can be losing a fight for 11 rounds and win it in the 12th with a knockout. Fighting has nothing to do with spreadsheets.

Regardless of whether or not you think the war is a good idea, it is clear that at this point, we must finish it with a definitive win. We can't use our rhetoric to say that we won. That didn't work with Saddam the first time. Our definition of winning must be our enemy admitting as much. Only when you Iraqi insurgent says, "Yes, we lost. We were defeated" can we say that we have achieved victory. Nothing less.

And what is our choice? I was in NYC during 9/11 and I was shocked at how bloodthirsty the average New Yorker had become. Sure there was love going around but when talk turned to revenge, even your Upper West Side Dakota princess was screaming for blood. That's not surprising. Most people's liberalism and peacefulness is shallow. Scare them a little and it will disappear because as a rule, people want stability more than true freedom. If a nuclear weapon is detonated in any US city, our civil right will evaporate and those who will be screaming the loudest for such a change will be same people who so depise our President and current course of action.

I don't believe that most people are necessarily Good or Bad. There's only Scared and Not. And scared people who haven't spent any time developing their inner resources will invariably make the wrong decision when the time comes.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just read your last post and this one. --hope you're doing better.

I appreciate your suspicion that folks who don't have the habits of reacting prudently in an emergency might not make the best choices. This notion fits fine with the opinions of Aristotle and Aquinas, my ol' pals.

Fukyama is the one who predicted that liberal democracy was the highest and last form of political development--an attitude that actually many neo-cons accept. Fukyama is wrong.

Fukyama ignores the permanence of evil and of free will.

True, I easily scoff at the mistakes and arrogant chatter of famous and wealthy scholars because I'm jealous. But also because the truth matters, both in the abstract and especially, because we have to come together on policy, in the practical world.

Trying to speed up the movement towards a modern, industrial, social and political democracy in Iraq was never going to be a simple matter. And the chances for failure have always been there. I think the President and his advisors made the right choice that there was no alternative but to change the trajectory of Middle Eastern developments, which were frankly going from bad to worse since WWI. (I don't know if you caught my post recently on the rise of capitalism and democracy--in that order--in Europe.)

You know what your friend Machiavelli has to say about destiny! He might have a point somewhere in there.

Aloha!

6:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

p.s. On the habits thing, I forgot that I wanted to add that fellows working everyday, taking care of their families, respecting God and their neighbors, have a bunch of pretty good habits of choosing good over evil, and acting prudently. I certainly wouldn't want to send Joe or Jane Smith (or myself) into battle without some EXTRA and more specific types of training, but I would trust such people to make as good decisions as possible even at the summit of power. In fact, I'd rather trust such persons than alleged experts like F. Fukyama, Richard Clark, or some other technocrat! The experts are all too ready to treat people like numbers.

6:41 AM

 
Blogger Kahuna6 said...

Sir-

Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. I had another surgery on Monday and have been in a vicodin-induced haze for a couple of days. I think my head is clear now and I won't embarrass myself here on my own blog.

Regarding Prof. Fukuyama-- I respectfully differ on your interpretation of his book "The End of History." As with all of Prof Fukuyama's work, he focuses on process. "The End of History" was ultimately about modernization and how through modernization people will work for liberal democracies. He was very clear about this. Capitalism then democracy. He was a neo-con of the Straussian order. It's clear that you both agree on this issue.

The Bush Administration totally disregarded this when they went to install a democracy in Iraq. It is their belief that democracy opens all doors but it is in fact, a reward for certain habits of behavior.

Prof. Fukuyama does ignore evil but he does give free will its due. I tend to agree with his approach. You cannot have an operational plan that accounts for evil. It's just not useful (operationally) to think that way.

I don't see a solution for the middle east. Iraq was bound to be a disaster unless we limited our goals to regime change only. Killing a king is easy. Reshaping a culture is next to impossible.
We didn't have a choice. We had to do something. To wait would only make the situation worse. But remaking the ME is sort of like teaching a Saudi Prince to be a responsible member of society. When you get so much for nothing (natural resources), there is no reason to develop your character. But the oil will eventually run out and then the ME will be like the old lady at the club, trying to eat out on faded beauty.

I am feeling a bit better. Thank you for your well wishes. It was been a rough couple of months.

Aloha,
Rich

9:31 PM

 
Blogger Kahuna6 said...

One more thing. Elie Wiesel wrote in one of his books that intellectuals should never be in charge of the levers of society because it is their tendency to treat people like abstractions. I agree. Raw information cannot take the place of common sense and character as much as some people would like it to be the case.

But Prof. Fukuyama's work has provided me with the clearest mental framework I've been able to find with regards to failed states and how to remake them. I'm reminded of that old question of what's better? Experience of theoretical knowledge? I think that if you are confronted with great odds, you ought to have both.

I hope you are well, my friend.

Aloha,
Rich

9:40 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home