home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

04/11/2003 Entry: "The Enemy of My Enemy is a Pain in the Arse"

OK. I've been reading with interest recent entries about the war. I've refrained from commenting, mainly because everyone's got an opinion, right? What does it matter that there's one more. You want a (pretty acerbic) anti-war view from an American, you go see Miss Monica. You want a (just as acerbic) pro-war view from a Brit, go read ReAndymator's blog. I refrained from talking about it, and said why a ways back on my own site. This is going to be my only post on the war.

In private I made two predictions:*That The Americans and British would be in and out in days;*That no WMDs would be found.

The first was actually inaccurate - it took a little longer to stomp the Iraqis. I honestly couldn't understand how anyone could think that the world's greatest war machine (and it's allies, otherwise known as "target practice") could possibly fail to crush Iraq in the shortest possible time. The second... well, we're going to have to wait and see with that one.

But then, it's easy to say, "I told you so", innit? Especially if I didn't tell you so in the first place. :-)

One reason I kept schtum is because I've been really ambivalent about the war. Saddam is a murdering sicko, right? It's madness to even suggest for a minute that the Americans are anywhere nearly as bad as he is (even though - and mark this well - the vast majority of the people in the Middle East, who hate Saddam, consider them to be far, far worse).

I believe that it was right to topple Saddam, and I rejoice that it didn't take very long (although I do predict that the mopping up operations may take a whole lot longer - think Khmer Rouge longer).

These are the reasons why I'm ambivalent.

1. Moral HighGrounding

What upsets me is the attribution of a moral dimension to the motives of the US and UK governments. No one is toppling Saddam Hussein for altruistic reasons. Before you go, "Oh, here we go again, he's talking about oil," hear me out. It's not about oil.

Fact: the UK and US supported and subsidised Saddam Hussein's government in the 80s.

Fact: Saddam has always been an evil mass-murdering dictator. Back in the 80s, he had torture chambers, right. He was killing Kurds right left and centre. He's not changed his ways.

The UK and US governments seemed to do the getting-in-bed-with-evil-dictators thing a lot back in the day - Pinochet springs to mind, for example. The principle at play was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This principle is the primary reason for most of the messes the West is in, and the reason why other nations so cordially hate us. We're at war with Argentina, we join up with Chile's mad evil dictator. We're in a bad way with Iran, we join up with Iraq. We're not so keen on the USSR, we train the Taleban guerillas fighting them.

We are the two most hated nations on Earth. We are, respectively, seen by 95% of the people on Earth as The Evil Empire, and The Evil Empire's Prison Bitch.

Sad but true. Part of the reason for this is that we are rightly perceived by (for example) Islamic nations as unprincipled in our choice of allies. We back a country up, then when it suits us, we stomp them. Sure, the Islamic states hate Saddam's guts... but they hate us more. Meanwhile, whatever you might think of states run by Sharia Law (and I wouldn't want to live in one), one thing is true: their alliances are made on principles... and they are kept.

If we were really doing this because Saddam is a Bad Guy, we'd have sorted him out back in the 80s. Along with Pinochet and the nuts who run Indonesia, and all the other countries the unprincipled right-wing nuts who ran our respective countries in the 80s enlisted to be on our side.

There is no moral reason why we did what we did. No government ever goes to war if they do not consider it in their interests to do so (and yes, that even includes WWII - go read up on it if you don't believe me). We did not "suddenly see the error of our ways".

Look at it through the eyes of the people of the Middle East. The Brits come and comprehensively stomp everyone throughout the nineteenth century. They bleed the Middle East dry, steal all the best ancient monuments (ever been to the British Museum?), crush dissent, murder, torture, and grab any piece of land that comes their way. WWII happens, and Britain finally goes, but only after installing Israel on top of Palestine. The US are accomplices in this. The US then back up this state which (in the opinions of the Middle Eastern people) has no business being there in a couple of wars, and then supports the Second Most Evil State in the region in a war against a principled Islamic state. We may not think like this, but I from what I've read and seen, I am pretty positive that the people in the Islamic states do.

We have crushed Saddam like a bug (again, it boggles that anyone could think that any other outcome would be possible) because it is expedient. No more, no less. We have a power base in the Gulf outside of Israel. We are trying to say to the other nations in the region, "Hey, look - we can crush the bad guys too!" which I don't think is going to wash, frankly. And we are attacking Iraq because after 9/11, we're flippin' well going to have to attack someone. Oh, and there's some oil there, too. But to be honest, the oil's a red herring.

So, while I welcome Saddam's fall, I just wish that the US and UK goverments would actually be honest about their reasons rather than to adopt a moral high ground that just isn't there.

2. The Quick FixYes, the Iraqis are now celebrating.

Last week, Saddam (or someone very like him) went out on the streets of Baghdad, and he got an ecstatic reception too. How come the same people cheered Saddam one day, and then US the other?

Simple. The people are cheering for the men with the biggest guns.

We often making the mistake of assuming that everyone in the world basically has a little Libertarian Westerner just dying to break out. But these people have never lived in a democracy. They have no reason to think that a democracy's any better, and probably if you asked some of the better informed ones, they'd tell you that democracy was a decadent Western invention. They cheer for the people in charge. They cheer for the people with the tanks. They just do.

And isn't even that they don't mean it - in their culture, you honestly and wholly give your alliegiance to the people in charge, because that's the Right Thing To Do.

I'm absolutely positive that things will be better for them now that the US and their Moving Targets (sorry, I mean the UK) are in charge. The question is: are the Iraqis going to think that?

You can go, "Duh! It's obvious! Of course they'll realise!" But I honestly don't know if they will. There will be a honeymoon period, and then the difficulty of running a state like Iraq will just rear its bushy-moustached head.

You simply can't assume that it's going to work if you just slot in your mode of government. (tangent: my recent exchange here with Mr "Religious Left Watch" got me thinking: the reason socialism only works in some countries - and it does, Sweden being the most obvious example - is because the people have to buy into it. if the people of a nation aren't prepared to take it, it might not work. A socialist government in the US would be an unmitigated disaster, for example. The same goes for democracy. Don't think that because a Western democracy works for us it's going to work for Iraq).

Take Afghanistan. I was depressed to read a couple weeks ago that even under the new Afghan government, resentment against the US (and Britain even more so - after all, it was our mess first, history fans) is at a peak. Are they ungrateful? No, because they don't consider us to have saved them.

In his comment on The Living Room, Joshua Claybourn wrote that success was toppling Saddam. No. I must disagree. Success is sorting out the mess that Iraq is in, a mess that both the UK and the US had a great hand in causing in the first place.

So. Were we right to go to war? Dunno. I honestly still don't know. We were right to stomp Saddam, but that's not the same thing. We will only be the heroes we think we are if we clear up the mess for which we were partly responsible in the first place.

There. My Take On The War, first, last and always. I hope that Richard will forgive me for putting this epic on his blog and I certainly won't take it at all personally if he reaches for the delete button :-).

Posted by Ivan The Crank @ 04/12/2003 09:49 PM CST

According to last night's news, the honeymoon period already seems to be over, I see.

Posted by Wood @ 04/12/2003 07:18 AM CST

Well, you know... I did go off on one, you know?

As for being the most hated nations on Earth... Well, I'd start with this...

Posted by Wood @ 04/11/2003 09:53 PM CST

Wood - I offered you an open invitation to post. I'm cut to the quick that you suggest I might press the delete button. Apologise sir, or I shall have satisfaction!

;o)

I agree with the general run of your argument. No surprise there then. I think, though, that the "we're the 2 most hated nations on earth" line might raise a few eyebrows. How would you substantiate the claim if you were challenged on it?

Posted by Richard Hall @ 04/11/2003 06:39 PM CST

Hang in there Wood, I can honestly say I've never seen Richard hit the delete button.He has far too much respect for our humanity than that!Good post.

Posted by Bene Diction @ 04/11/2003 05:37 PM CST

Have to laugh whenever I read, 'We are the two most hated nations on Earth. We are, respectively, seen by 95% of the people on Earth as The Evil Empire, and The Evil Empire's Prison Bitch.'

Articulate if ntohing else. :)

Posted by Pen @ 04/11/2003 04:03 PM CST