July 7, 2004
EasP:
In charge, Iraqis crack down hard: Major criminal sweeps in Baghdad, a curfew in Najaf, and local judges reinstating the death penalty. (Dan Murphy, 7/08/04, CS Monitor)
The announcement Wednesday of a new national security law is the most dramatic in a string of recent moves by Iraqi officials, both local and national, to get tough on crime and insurgents. It illustrates the new interim government's priorities - and underscores the use of hard-line practices often avoided by US soldiers and the now-defunct US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).In Baghdad, for example, the police and interior ministry are now conducting large-scale sweeps throughout the city to capture alleged criminals; in the Shiite shrine city of Najaf, local officials have imposed a 7 p.m. evening curfew to deal with insurgents; local judges have reinstated the death penalty that the US occupation had suspended; and the Interior Ministry says it will soon begin removing tens of thousands of squatters from government buildings.
Iraqi public opinion is broadly supportive of almost any measure that could bring the situation in Iraq under control. "The US never did anything to stop the gangs,'' says Mohammed Hassan, a fruit vendor in Baghdad's tough Bettawain neighborhood, where Iraqi forces arrested over 150 alleged criminals last week. "I'll support [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi if he keeps it up."
The great lesson of the post-war period--one that is unfortunately obscured by domestic partisan politics--is that sovereignty should have been turned over far faster. A genuinely oppressed people does not require, and should not have imposed upon them, the kind of lengthy transition that Germany and Japan did. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 7, 2004 11:22 PM
We're learning as we go along here. Haven't done this in awhile, you know.
Posted by: Sandy P at July 8, 2004 12:19 AMSandy:
Yes, getting it wrong this time is excusable. The second time isn't.
Posted by: oj at July 8, 2004 12:21 AMMaybe it wouldn't have taken us so long if the Iraqi's hadn't squatted down and did nothing but wait to see who the winner would be. They sure didn't act like they were serious about gaining their sovereignty swiftly.
So maybe the next time, the locals will take a lesson from Iraq and act in such a manner that we'll leave quickly.
I've pretty much had it with all the criticism and the second guessing.
And it bodes ill for the future, even when it's done in the spirit of "constructive opinion."
I don't know what the "solution" is, exactly. Respectful silence? Benefit of the doubt? The realization that things are incredibly more complex than even the most complex analysis?
Everything's so easy all of a sudden; and we're all perfectionists.... And the blogosphere has turned everyone into an expert, or a potential one.
A nation---a world---of armchair quarterbacks who don't seem to realize they're not watching football. They're, most of them, not even playing football. It ain't pretty.
(And then there are the ones who criticize with vile intent.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 8, 2004 3:09 AMBarry,
I see your point. However without the blogosphere (more specifically BroJudd.com) would average Americans be afforded the luxury of logging onto a website and being able to see news from a myriad of sources (both with a liberal and conservative P.O.V.) and then discuss what they've read?
Posted by: Bartman at July 8, 2004 8:47 AMI'm also tired of all the second guessing. Let's look forward to a better future for the Iraqi people.
Posted by: Jana at July 8, 2004 9:09 AMray:
Why would (how could) they when the occuppying force is doing it?
Posted by: oj at July 8, 2004 9:13 AMBarry: Obviously, some people are judging the war and occupation against perfection, in an attempt to make them look as bad as possible. As it happens, the war looks pretty good, even against the standard of perfection. The occupation, on the other hand, although a stunning success in historical terms, does fall far short of perfection. It is critical that we take a good look at both the war and the occupation and figure out whether we made mistakes and how not to make similar mistakes next time.
Having said that, my (uneducated) opinion is that the most common criticisms of the occupation (we should have prevented the looting, we should have had more troops, we shouldn't have disbanded the army) are wrong and are mostly just convenient criticisms for those who opposed the war in the first place or who lost faith when they realized that going to war meant that Americans were going to die. If, for example, we had used force to crack down on the looting, or had kept the Ba'athist army in place, the same people would now be explaining how those obviously stupid choices explain the ongoing terrorism.
As for troop strength, I have to admit that I'm torn. Some knowledgeable people without a political axe to grind seem to take this criticism seriously. But I have my doubts. As our greatest problem has been force protection from a small cadre of terrorists, I don't really understand how a greater force would help much, other than to give the terrorists more targets and stretch our already thin force protection capabilities.
It seems to me that our weaknesses stem from not having enough troops trained, or cross-trained, as MP's, translators and civil occupation authorities. These are weaknesses that could only have been corrected if we had started years ago and only if we were upfront that we expected to be occupying an Arab country sooner or later. I wish we had done that, but I'm not surprised that we didn't. (And no, I'm not blaming President Clinton for this failure. Republican presidents are equally bad at preparing for the next war.)
Posted by: David Cohen at July 8, 2004 9:16 AMYes, it's indisputable that the blogosphere does have tremendous value, though it's a sword with a double edge....
Anyway, here's for some chuckles:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5379641/site/newsweek/
The problem is that the Iraqis resemble the Jews more than the Germans--we occuppied the victims.
Posted by: oj at July 8, 2004 9:30 AMDavid:
"I don't really understand how a greater force would help much, other than to give the terrorists more targets and stretch our already thin force protection capabilities."
As usual, you are spot-on. Also, don't forget the increased logistics required to support all those extra troops. The supply lines themselves are also targets.
Has anyone thought that one of the reasons the complaint about not enough troops continues apace is because "the journalists" do not feel safe and they want more bodyguards? Not really part of the mission, is it?
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 8, 2004 1:20 PMJeff: Good point. I suppose in this instance I can forgive you for bringing actual knowledge and experience to bear, though it does threaten the whole blog system.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 8, 2004 4:34 PMWhat ray said.
Had we done what Orrin suggests, it's pretty easy to predict what would be there now -- an Iranian satrap.
If that's what they want -- and if we do not intervene, that's what I predict they are going to get in the longer run anyhow -- I cannot see any point to replacing Saddam.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 9, 2004 3:32 AMHarry:
Why? It would have been (or will be) just like Iran in twenty years and evolving rapidly towards liberal democracy. That's far faster than we Westerners grew up.
Posted by: oj at July 9, 2004 8:53 AM