June 29, 2004
LESS NEO, MORE CON, AND A HEFTY HELPING OF THEO
How the neo-cons can do it better next time: Something went wrong in Iraq. George Bush and his advisers need to learn the lesson (John Keegan, 6/30/04, The Age)
The neo-conservatives' mistake was to suppose that, wherever tyranny ruled, democracy was its natural alternative. So, when planning for the government of postwar Iraq, the neo-conservatives jumped to the conclusion that, as soon as Saddam's tyranny was destroyed, Iraqi democrats would emerge to assume governmental responsibility from the liberating coalition and a pro-Western regime would evolve seamlessly from the flawed past.To think in such a way was to reveal a dangerously post-Marxist cast of mind. Marxists can think only in political terms. They accept, even if they despise, liberal and conservative opposition. What they cannot accept is that their opponents may be motivated by beliefs which are not political. That explains their hatred of religion.
It is religion, of course, which the neo-conservatives have come up against in post-Saddam Iraq. Not only religion; the survivors of the Baath Party, a strictly secular organisation, are also deeply involved in the opposition to the American presence. Religion is, however, the real opposition force.
Whatever the purity of their political motives, the American occupiers should not have dissolved the Iraqi army or police or civil administration, whatever the number of Baath Party members they contain.
Iraq's new Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi, has now to rebuild the country's military and civilian services from exactly the same group of individuals who the neo-conservatives rejected at the outset.
Let us hope the neo-conservatives have learnt a lesson, since it is unlikely that this will be the last time the US will have to undertake an exercise in nation-building. Next time Washington should take as its target the preservation of as much as possible.
Domestic politics stateside made de-Ba'athification inevitable whether a good idea or not. But the criticism of neo-cons as not being sufficiently conservative and not grasping the centrality of religion to a healthy democratic society is spot on. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 29, 2004 6:41 PM
The problem is indeed religion, but not in the way Keegan imagines.
In any country where the word 'intelligentsia' has meaning, the pool of people even moderately competent in running a modern organization is going to be too small.
This is always going to be the case in an Islamic country, because their education systems are so lousy and antimodern.
But it's also the case elsewhere.
In moderately advanced countries, unless completely depraved like Germany, you can throw the rascals out and replace them with different rascals, in the best case, somewhat less rascally ones.
If your only alternative is to keep the old rascals and give them new uniforms, you're probably doomed.
Therefore, eastern Europe can be liberated, France can be liberated, and maybe Mexico.
But S. Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia are much more difficult.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 29, 2004 8:54 PMReally, they appear to be doing rather well.
Harry:
What Orrin said. Given the state of the world and their neighbours, those are strange examples.
Posted by: Peter B at June 29, 2004 9:52 PMGermany is not completely depraved, although I suspect you're talking about the Weimar years that saw the election of the Nazi's.
However, the Nazi's only had electoral success when the Great Depression caused massive unemployment. Even then, Hitler only became Chancellor because of backroom corrupt deals and a senile Hindenburg. And Nazification only began after the Reichstag fire gave them an excuse to assume emergency power.
And once firepower removed the dictator, what do you know, they were replaced by less rascally people like Adenauer that did quite well for their country and freedom.
Germany's crimes under the Nazis are without a doubt, but I think wholesale condemnation of German culture is only done because we don't want to admit that such atrocities are in fact very human.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 30, 2004 11:46 AMSpeaking of 'depraved' and Germany, how many years did the postwar occupation take? four or five? before we trusted the civil authorities enough to govern autonomously? And we had thoroughly defeated their army. Heck, the Marshall Plan didn't even start until 1948! As Orrin says, we're actually doing rather well.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at June 30, 2004 3:28 PM