The third post by Our Man in Basra about his observations from both Iraq and the West, to which he has now returned.
I have noticed that most Westerners tend to form one of two opinions about the situation in Iraq and about what we should be doing. One opinion is what I would call Idealistic. Iraqis are human beings just like us and so deserve democracy and freedom just like us. Therefore we should give them these things, as soon as possible. This viewpoint seems to be held by Americans who do not work with actual Iraqis, and by many libertarians.
The second opinion, which I shall call Realistic, is that the Iraqis are fundamentally different people to us. They have a different culture, a different religion, are basically untrustworthy, and uncivilised. They like stealing from and killing each other. They need a brutally authoritarian regime to keep them in order, and basically we are wasting our time trying to teach them anything else. This point of view tends to be held by those who deal with Iraqis day-to-day and is most acutely felt by ex-Idealistic Americans who simply cannot understand people who, instead of repairing their country, trash it.
The problem with the Idealistic theory is that Iraqis have been traumatised by thirty five years of brutal kleptocracy. They have no experience or understanding of what democracy, or even freedom, actually mean. For example, the end of Saddam’s rule in Basra was taken by most Basrans to mean the end of traffic rules as well, so they now drive like suicide bombers.
This is similar to what occurred in Central Europe after communism. Most people had little understanding of what a free market meant. They tended to think that capitalism meant a free license to rip off your customers. They also expected that the coming of freedom would mean instant wealth like in the West. They took a while to realise that it meant the freedom to build yourself wealth like in the West. The same is true, but twenty times more, in Iraq. At least the Central Europeans had a past history of civil freedom, and neighbours to learn from. None of this is true for the Iraqis.
The Realistic viewpoint, on the other hand, is intrinsically, if unconsciously, racist. There are objective differences between Iraqis and Westerners due to Islamic faith and tribal traditions. But these are not genetically encoded and impossible to change. In fact there are aspects of both Islam and of tribal traditions that are perfectly compatible with democracy and freedom. And indeed, the argument that Iraqis are lazy and stupid simply does not reflect the facts to be seen on the streets of Basra. You can see Iraqis driving cars that are little more than steering wheel, engine and a few road tires, but they keep them moving. They may be destroying their own infrastructure, but they show incredible determination and inventiveness while doing so.
What astounds me about both viewpoints, which are held by many intelligent people, is how absurdly simplistic they are. Iraqis are for the most part rational people, whose behaviour can be rationally explained. They react rationally to the environment they are in, which includes their experience under Saddam and their fear of his return. It may not make sense to give them complete democracy and freedom immediately and this point was made to me often by Iraqis, who insist that we should not try to govern Iraq with Western laws. They keep saying that Iraqis are different and need a strong fist.
But to suggest that Iraqis cannot learn to operate in a free and capitalist society is absurd. The problem here is the time scale. Neither viewpoint seems to take account of what of the blindingly obvious – you cannot rebuild the entire Iraqi society in a matter of months. The war ended at the end of May and we have only had four months so far. The reconstruction of Germany after World War II took about a decade.
Having been in Basra for some months, I am convinced, as are most Iraqis, that it will be a rich and prosperous city somewhere around five to ten years from now. As long as Iraqis have security from Ba’athists and from the neighbouring states, they will achieve this themselves. But with the French manoeuvring to give the UN political primacy in Iraq, the question is not: will Iraq be rebuilt, but who will get the credit?
The chief problem with the Iraqis is that they don’t exist – that is to say, there is simply no such thing as an Iraqi nation deemed by its citizens to be a community of fate to which they owe allegiance.
In reality, there are at least three different breeding populations and cultures – the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. And within these cultures, there are dozens, if not thousands, of kins, clans and tribes whose loyalties are exclusively to their own blood relatives and their birth religion. Iraq is not even a social construction, let alone a nation. It is not even a multicultural community. It is a multi-kin community that is just panting to disintegrate.
As the genial Steve Sailer put it some months ago in ‘The American Conservative’, comparing the task of nation-building in Iraq with that of rebuiding Germany and Japan after the Second World War:
“The deep social structure of Iraq is the complete opposite of [Germany or Japan], with their highly patriotic, cooperative, and (not surprisingly) outbred peoples […] The Iraqis, in contrast, more closely resemble the Hatfields and the McCoys.”
(quoted from John Tierney at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/international/middleeast/28CLAN.html?pagewanted=all&position=)
The only flaw in that quotation is the use of the word ‘Iraqis’ — perhaps a better term would be ‘Iraq-dwellers’.
Besides, the debate is not between ‘idealists’ and ‘realists’. It is between know-nothing, dogmatic ideologists and well-informed skeptics who do their homework before they shoot from the hip. In fact, there is not really a debate at all, because the ‘idealists’ can teach us only one thing anyhow – how not to do it.
At the end of the Korean War a plurality of voices said that the Koreans would never rise above peasant status and the country would remain poor because of their “backward” Korean culture and prevalence of Buddhism and Confucianism. Of course we have seen two distinct economic models applied to North and South and we know which one works in spite of such objections.
Will it be harder in Iraq? I have no doubt. But humans seem to respond to the same positive incentives in the same positive way regardless of location…. Look at the Chinese diaspora and the evolution of economic wealth among differing systems…..
“But humans seem to respond to the same positive incentives in the same positive way regardless of location…. Look at the Chinese diaspora and the evolution of economic wealth among differing systems…..”
Location doesn’t matter, but systems do. The social environment in which individuals find themselves has a massive impact on how people turn out. It’s not really about location. And right now, China is figuring this out.
As for Iraq, they’re just learning the ropes as they go along. What’s needed is a strong hand to help them get up whenever they take a tumble, or a swat on the backside when they mess up and/or refuse to learn. Sooner or later they’ll walk on their own.
And then it’ll be their turn to guide the rest of the Middle East.
Garth writes:
“At the end of the Korean War a plurality of voices said that the Koreans would never rise above peasant status …”
Well, the Koreans have an average IQ of 106, as opposed to the Iraq-dwellers, whose average IQ is 87. No wonder the (Southern) Koreans succeeded, once they got access to free markets.
Breeding populations with high IQs (such as the Koreans or Chinese) tend to succeed wherever they are, provided they possess economic freedom. Breeding populations with relatively low IQs tend to fail, wherever they are — though of course they also benefit from economic liberalisation, in absolute if not in relative terms.
So don’t expect all that much economic flourishing on the part of Iraq-dwellers, even if the impossible happens and they resist the temptation to slaughter one another in the name of Allah.
My forecast: misery, more centuries of misery for Iraq and her neighbours.
Charles,
I wonder what IQ tests said of Koreans at the end of the war… were they 106 at that time? And whose tests? What measure? I’ve no doubt that there were those who argued that the Koreans were dummies back then.. just as you accuse the Iraqis the same.
Genetic changes occur at a very slow pace. When Bagdad was one of the worlds greatest cities, if not the greatest (with the hanging gardens, early capitalist system, etc etc) our ancestors were savages. I am sure a Babylonian Blogger would have said of the Northern People:
“What idiots. Barely mastered fire, live in mud and peat houses…eat each other… They are hopeless”
And during our Dark Ages, knowledge resided in the Muslim lands including mathematics and the classics that were lost to us. We seemed pretty dumb at that time too on a relative scale….
If I remember correctly, something like half of the Korean population was illiterate at the end of the war. I may have that stat wrong but I believe I have seen it somewhere.
I do not believe that it is a genetic issue in the slightest. I think your post in error.
Excellent and thoughtful post. The problem with the criticism of the “Realist” view is simple and straightforward — it assumes the amount of time and resources the Coalition can devote to remaking Iraq has no limits. This is not the case. There were good reasons why the occupations of Germany and Japan lasted as long as they did; we wanted the institutions established under them to last. We just don’t know if the rapid progress made so far in Iraq will not dissolve into civil war as soon as we leave, but that is a real possibility.
The question is not whether democracy in an Arab country is a realistic goal. It is rather whether democracy, as we understand it, is realistic in the context of the time and resources Britain and America are prepared to devote to Iraq. There has been much discussion of whether the war was justified, when sovereignty should be handed over, who should get reconstruction contracts and so forth. I honestly haven’t seen much discussion of whether our objective — not a stable Iraq but a liberal democratic one — is realistic given the obstacles posed by Arab culture and the country’s recent past.
The resources are present – Iraq has plenty of oil, and pre-1980 was able to finance a middle class, a huge army and air force, and some of the best infrastructure in the ME. And they were less dependent on expats than the other oil states (save Iran).
Its a question of political will over the long term, not necessarily cost, that is a fairly short-term problem.
Having been collaborating with Gauleiter Bremer & occupying Basra for some months, I am convinced, as are most Iraqis, that it will be a rich and prosperous city somewhere around five to ten years from now once the USA have suffer enough losses to evacuate. As long as Iraqis have security from Ba’athists and from the neighbouring states, they will achieve this themselves. But with the French helping to establish Iraqi democracy & self-ownership and give the UN political primacy in Iraq, the question is not: will Iraq be rebuilt, but who will get the credit?
Hey Charles… I didn’t recognise you without that white sheet over your head! See you at the next cross burning, dude!
“But with the French helping to establish Iraqi democracy & self-ownership…”
Next, I expect my cats to come to me claiming they established a security zone for the local mice.
French foreign policy these days reminds me of nothing so much as a white slave brothel owner:
– Extract as many euros as possible while screwing the inmates
– When someone tries to help the inmates, pay off the police
– As soon as the inmates are free, try to make sure that no one else can do anything for or with them.
Democracy, freedom and capitalism are indeed idealistic goals, I wish Europe could acheive them too.
As to Iraq, if they get some benign authoritarian regime like, say, Jordan or the gulf emirates – that would be fine too, a huge improvement over Saddam. Korea also had a long stretch of authoritarian regimes.
My biggest worry is the tribalism.
I don’t know how much depth and devotion there is to the form of tribalism practiced in Iraq as compared to parts of Africa. What worries me is that Iraq will follow the path taken by many African countries where tribalism and democracy coexist.
In those countries a single tribe eventually takes over the entire country by virtue of size, amalgamation of smaller tribes and violence. Once in power that tribe then goes on a long term spree of death an oppression in an attempt to drive all other tribes either into extinction or exile.
Will this happen in Iraq? No idea.
ed
A good assessment ofthe situation. I, too, am in Iraq, and I get to go out and speak with the locals regularly in their own language. Most of them just want to get back to work and have some money coming in to take care of their families. Unlike the armchair diplomats, they want to meet the basic needs first. Not one of them has said things were better under Saddam, nor do they want him back in power. Given time and security, the Iraqis have a much better chance at succeeding , far better than I can see democracy working in many other Gulf Arab states.
One thing that is different now from the Iraq occupation and the Korean and World War II ones iare the differences in communication technologies. Hopefully there is going to be an exponential growth in contac between the Iraqia themselves and the outside world. This could have a profound impact on tribalism. Also, I sometimes wonder if the West is a tribal free as it believes?
Jacob,
Democracy, freedom and capitalism are indeed idealistic goals, I wish Europe could acheive them too.
??????????????????????????????????????????????
Democracy was coined in Athens, a European city.
Freedom? The very essence of Europe.
Capitalism: European reality tracing back to centuries ago…
“Having been in Basra for some months, I am convinced, as are most Iraqis, that it will be a rich and prosperous city somewhere around five to ten years from now. As long as Iraqis have security from Ba’athists and from the neighbouring states, they will achieve this themselves.”
I think this is rather optimistic.
Firstly, there is the danger that the coalition could become viewed as occupiers rather than liberators, in a similar fashion to Israel in Lebanon just over 20 years ago. If popular sentiment turns, then the coalition will find it almost impossible to stay in Iraq (due to escalating casualties and costs).
Secondly, Iraq is an artificial state, split upon ethno-religious lines. Historically such states disintegrate once there is no central authority with the power and the will to hold them together. The results are sometime peaceful (e.g. Czechoslovakia), sometimes messy (Balkans)
Third, the apparent desire from average Iraqis for a “strong fist” bodes ill for the future of the country. Given the problems the coalition have providing basic services and security, it would be quite understandable if a populist demagogue made a bid for power on an authoritarian/stability program and attracted considerable support (a la Mussolini “making the trains run on time”). If the support is genuine, then how do the coalition government intend to stand in such a person’s way?
Finally, even if the coalition continues to win the support of lots of Iraqis, there is the real possibility that escalating terrorist attacks will start to damage sentiment back in the US and UK. Will the majority of Americans still support the occupation if 100 soliders get blown up by a truck bomb, and television broadcasts their body bags and weeping families on the nightly news? There was strong support for ousting a nasty piece of work like Saddam; I am not sure there is such support for sacrificing US soldiers in a lengthy and nasty guerilla campaign, just so America can occupy a part of the Middle East. At some point, ordinary Americans will ask “what are we doing out there, why not just bring out men back home?”
A slow but steady progress towards peace is one possibility, but in all honesty how likely is it? I think the author has a touching but naive faith in the political leadership of the US and UK, if he thinks they are going to do whatever is necessary to ensure the occupation works. Even if they are, the general public – either at home or in Iraq – most likely isn’t prepared to support them in doing so.
Yes Kodiak, France has done a lovely job of just that in Africa. Hey wait a second, no it hasn’t.
Pot meet Kettle, Kettle Pot. America helped set up to Democracy’s after WW2. Japan and Germany, now England and France helped in Germany, but America had Japan to themselves. In both instances things have turned out pretty well. Which African Country occupied by France in the past has turned into a good democracy?
Kodiak,
Europe also produced fairly recently such things as Nazism, Communism, Bonapartism(?).
Democracy was invented in Athens and destryoed where ? In Rome ? Paris ? Berlin ?
The poor primitive devils in the ME weren’t able to duplicate these horrors.
Today EU only has high taxation, stiffling overregulation, economic stagnation and horrible leaders (Chirac ?).
We, idealists, can imagine some possible improvements.
James Stephenson: (…) France has done a lovely job of just that in Africa. Hey wait a second, no it hasn’t.
Hasn’t she really? Well, I remind those whining, desperate US civilians recovering hope as the French army saved them from certain slaughter in Côte-d’Ivoire, something like 3 months ago. Another stuff Bush had to beg Chirac for… Not to mention the latest visit for apologies that Mrs Bush paid to France this week.
Jacob: this time you need an ice-cold shower!!! Don’t slavery, racism, KKK, eugenics, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresde, Hamburg, Tokyo, Chile & Bhopal tell you anything, geographically speaking at least?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even after the second bomb the Japanese military officers did not want to give up, so bringing that up is ridiculus. We will not mention why America had to go to Vietnam.
And please Ms. Bush was not there for apologies, heck it looked like she was about to have a cow when Chirac kissed her hand. Which was funny as hell.
And I guess you do not think we could have had US Marines go into the former colony of France and do the job as well as the French soldiers?
When was the last time America sent troops to protect people in a former colony of America. Oh wait, we have only had one Colony, Philliphines and after we rescued them from the Japanese, and the war was over, we gave it back.
Some of your countrymen disagree with you Kodiak about how well the French govern themselves, much less anyone else. Check out this link…
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=112118
It’s ok Kodiak, if America starts declining in the next 40 years, I will probably be spouting the same BS about America, you now spout about France.
James Stephenson,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even after the second bomb the Japanese military officers did not want to give up
US myth. Not what the World knows.
Some of your countrymen disagree with you
Yes and?
If I glance over Bush lastest poll ratings, YOU are a minority in your own country.
if America starts declining in the next 40 years, I will probably be spouting the same BS about America, you now spout about France
Hey! The USA has already declined; Iraq is just the final countdown. US share in World GDP: 50% (1945) – 20% (today) – 10% (tomorrow).
Prepare yourself.
“If I glance over Bush lastest poll ratings, YOU are a minority in your own country.”
Uh, what? Have you seen Bush’s latest poll ratings? They are still over 50%.
“Hey! The USA has already declined; Iraq is just the final countdown. US share in World GDP: 50% (1945) – 20% (today) – 10% (tomorrow).
Prepare yourself.”
US GDP is not declining, the rest of the world’s is increasing in relation to it. US GDP will continue to increase as it always has, but as other nations continue to industrialize and free up markets, naturally all of their collective efforts will increase in comparison to ours.
The assertion that the US is in decline because other nations improve is ludicrous, economics is not a zero sum game, wealth is generated not merely shoveled around here and there.
Kodiak:
I don’t think the decline of France is necessarily irreversible. We just happen to be going through a period in the world’s history where maniacal hard work and innovation are increasing in popularity as more and more developing nations adopt market reforms in order to raise their citizens’ standards of living.
I have every expectation that once the last developing nation has come online and the global standard of living is sufficiently elevated, the French ideal of leisure/sloth will again gain traction. And in some quarters, it will never go away.
“Well, the Koreans have an average IQ of 106, as opposed to the Iraq-dwellers, whose average IQ is 87.”
Point 1
We don’t know that!
Point 2
You have got to be kidding!
Point 3
What is your IQ Charles? higher than mine I’m sure. But look What? that gets us.
Point 4
I’m not smart enough to come up with one, maybe you are right.
NOT!
John Davison
US GDP will continue to increase as it always has (…)
It’s funny your selective memory forgot to mention the tremendous 1929 self-collapse…
as other nations continue to industrialize and free up markets
“Free up”? Interesting… Like the steel market?
Jonathan: the French ideal of leisure/sloth
Your mixing up leisure with sloth tells everything. Your “ideological” bias is apparently not only retarded, it’s also driven by jealousy.
Kodiak: You seem to have mistaken us for someone who gives a damn about Bush.
Kodiak:
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that was your interpretation of my statement. Your mind seems to garble much of what it perceives.
The truth is this: that nation will have the sustained highest average standard of living which best encourages and rewards its people for overcoming the pressing problems which the market identifies, while allowing the slackers to suffer the natural consequences of their inaction.
So . . . either you believe in the face of overwhelming evidence that this nation is France, or you simply don’t believe in microeconomics. I believe that your days of riding on the backs of your former colonies are numbered. We just removed another of the planks in your litter.
Jonathan,
Jalousie! Quand tu nous tiens…