Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Baker-Hamilton Panel on Iraq tells us the obvious about the need to change course

By Pamela K. Taylor

Today's headlines:
Panel: Bush's Iraq policies have failed
Gates says U.S. isn't winning Iraq war
Panel Urges Basic Shift in U.S. Policy in Iraq

As much "I told you so's" are not useful, this is really a "haven't we been saying this for months" moment.

The fact of the matter is, having made a huge mess in a country we should have left alone in the first place, we are now stuck. If we pull out, Iraq seems sure to descend into a really nasty civil war, and will likely emerge with an Islamist regime along the lines of its neighbor, Iran. If we stay, we get dragged into the really nasty civil war, lose a lot more American lives, and are unable to prevent that Islamist regime from coming into power. Either way, it seems pretty much inevitable that large numbers of Iraqis are going to lose their lives along the way, and the eventual government of Iraq is going to hold substantial grudges against the US.

So what can we do?

It's pretty clear to me that the longer we stay, the worse it is going to be. Violence against people perceived as collaborators is at an all time high. That's what much of reported sectarian violence is about. It's more the people cooperating with the US vs the people resisting what they perceive as an occupation than it is sunni vs shi'a simply because they are sunni and shi'a. Pre-existing political tensions between the former ruling Sunni minority and the Shia majority, as well as religious differences only exacerbate the situation, but the underlying cause is the continued presence of American combat troops in Iraq and divisions between Iraqis as to what to do about it -- go along with American plans as nicely as possible so we will leave sooner, or try to force us out.

The longer we stay, the greater the military attempts to get us to leave, and to pressure our collaborators, will become. If we leave in three years, it will be worse than if we leave in two years. If we leave in two years, it will be worse than if we leave in one. The sooner we can begin to withdraw, the sooner Iraq can begin to heal.

It is probably not a good idea to simply leave a vacuum. The Arab states, or the UN should send peacekeeping forces to the country in an attempt to minimize the bloodshed, but what really needs to happen is something along the lines of Truth and Reconcilliation a la South Africa.

Iraq has lived for decades under a ruthless military dictator and the wounds from that time are still festering. Two wars with America and one occupation later, and the wounds are becoming life-threatening. Only by a national reconciliation process will the country be able to heal and put the past behind it. Otherwise, simmering tensions will surely erupt in ten, twenty, thirty years as they did in the former Yugoslavia.

As much as I think the US ought to make feasible this sort of effort with monetary contributions, I also think that we need to stay out of the process. It must be 100% genuine and 100% Iraqi, with no possibility of a perception of outside interference.

As we withdraw and after we have withdrawn, we need to make reparations to the Iraqi people. I'm not talking throwing some money at American contractors... money that never gets translated into projects that improve the quality of life for Iraqi people. I mean rebuilding the country's infrastructure, building hospitals, universites, factories, providing scholarships for Iraqis who want to study in American universities, especially Iraqis who want to study medicine, engineering, chemistry, business administration, etc.

We owe Iraq a lot after supporting Hussein, the first Iraq war, ten years of sanctions, and the second Iraq war. Having devastated their country, it is our responsibility to rebuild it. And rather than trying to dominate whatever new government emerges in Iraq with force and military threats, we should win their trust with generosity.

And we shouldn't expect to be met with smiling faces, rather we can expect to be greeted with suspicion and mistrust for many, many years to come. The Iraqis aren't going to forget what we did to them any more than the Iranians forget the Mossadegh and the Shah. Americans may not remember that the Iranian Revolution was a direct result of us toppling the democratically elected Mossadegh and supporting the Shah with his notorious secret police, the Savik, but the Iranians surely so.

So too, we can expect the Iraqis to hold long grudges that we supported Saddam Hussein when he was gassing his own people, and sending political enemies to be tortured. We can expect them to remember that we invaded their country on false pretenses. If we take the steps to atone for our treatment of their country, they and other people's who rightfully view the US as a self-interested bully, will slowly rediscover respect for us.

There is an awful lot that is good about America -- from our Constitution with its freedoms, particuarly freedom of speech and religion, to an insistence on due process in the courts and checks and balances in federal and states governments, and a individualism that has historically resulted in the most class fluid society in the world.

But that beauty and moral high ground has been crowded out by our unconscionable foreign policy since WWII, both in countering the spread of communism and in ensuring access to the world's oil reserves and other natural resources.

I know the deplorable conditions in many countries with rich natural resources cannot be laid solely at the feet of multi-national corporations and the countries that back them up -- indigenous mismanagement and corruption has played a vital role. And I know that people will say that only developed nations had the expertise, wealth, and technology to be able to develop those resources, which may well be true.

But it remains the case that we have developed natural resources without at the same time developing the countries where those natural resources are located, we have protected our own access and ability to continue developing those resources at the cost of human dignity and at the price of huge amounts of human sufferring.

It would have been better to help those countries build the infrastructure, manufacturing base, techonology sector, etc, to use their own resources themselves. Would we have been less wealthy -- in terms of dollars? Yes. In terms of our contribution to human welfare? No. In terms of friends and allies? Definately not.

Our foreign policy has concentrated on material wealth over human dignity and the importance of building allies through generosity for too long. Iraq would be a good place to start changing course.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are many inaccurate statements in this piece. However, this one really stands out:

"Americans may not remember that the Iranian Revolution was a direct result of us toppling the democratically elected Mossadegh and supporting the Shah with his notorious secret police, the Savik...."

The Shah became the leader of Iran in 1941 after succeeding his father. The Iranian constitution placed the Shah as head of state.

Mossadegh was not elected prime minister by the Iranian people. At the Shah's suggestion, the Iranian legislative body known as the Majlis in 1952 made Mossadegh prime minister.

In 1953 Mossadegh tried to peruade the Shah, the constitutional head of state, to leave Iran. The Shah refused and, using his constitutional authority, formally dismissed the prime minister. Mossadegh refused to resign. Mossadegh was later arrested and tried for treason.

Mossadegh was not elected by the Iranian people, he became prime minister with the blessing of the Shah, and he was never the head of state in Iran. Nevertheless, leftists such as Silver continue to peddle the lie that he was the leader of Iran and that he was overthrown in a coup.

My respectful advice to Silver would be to stick to gay issues. Foreign affairs are WAY over her head.

Diane Silver said...

I'll make certain the writer of this piece, Pamela K. Taylor, sees your comments.

Unfortunately, I am under deadline pressure right now on another project and can't participate much today on In This Moment.

Pamela K Taylor said...

Nothing like partial truths and revisionist history from anonymous posters...

First, my statements were not meant to be a comprehensive history of Iranian politics, but a quick example of our American foreign policy in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have created long-standing anger, resentment and hatred. If anyone doubts the actuality of this anger and resentment, I ask them to think back to the hostage crisis, or to read the memoir Iran Awakening by Nobel Peace prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, who discusses at length Iranian politics and their feelings towards the American government and its interventions in Iran, including CIA participation in toppling Mossadegh.

Second, the poster is simply wrong in several details, and is also confusing several different people when he speaks of the Shah. Much as we didn't have the same President in 1941 as we did in 1953, so too Iran has had several different Shah's in recent history. In 1941, it was Reza (Khan) Shah (who was also ousted by foreigners, in this case the British and the Russians). In 1953 it was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who tried to depose Mossadegh, and meeting with extreme resitance from the populace was forced to reinstate him and give him control over the army. (what the poster refers to as Mossadegh being appointed Prime Minister by the Shah.)

CIA participation in the overthrow of Mossadegh via Operation Ajax was a subject of much controversy within the CIA in the 70s. It was finally acknowledged publically by then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in March of 2000, when she stated, "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."


Anyway, there is not room here for a complete history of Iran since the turn of the 20th century. I suggest http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/ for more information on Mossadegh. Also, All the Shah's Men, by Steven Kinzer is an interesting read.

Anonymous said...

A I noted above, stick to gay and lesbian issues. Foreign affairs are WAY over your head.

Here's your response:

"In 1941, it was Reza (Khan) Shah (who was also ousted by foreigners, in this case the British and the Russians). In 1953 it was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who tried to depose Mossadegh, and meeting with extreme resitance from the populace was forced to reinstate him and give him control over the army. (what the poster refers to as Mossadegh being appointed Prime Minister by the Shah."

I did not, as you say, confuse several different people when I referred to the Shah. Iran did not, as you claim, have several different Shahs in recent history.

Iran had just ONE Shah between September 16, 1941 and February 11, 1979. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi served as Shah during that entire period. In accordance with the Iranian constitution, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the head of state during that entire period.

I did not, as you state, say that Mossadegh was appointed prime minister by the Shah. I wrote, "At the Shah's suggestion, the Iranian legislative body known as the Majlis in 1952 made Mossadegh prime minister."

Your post implied that Mossadegh was democratically elected prime minister by the Iranian people. He was not.

If the Shah was part of any coup, it was clearly a countercoup against Mossadegh, who, in accordance with the Iranian constitution, did not have the authority to remove the Shah from power.

Your ignorance on this topic is simply breathtaking.

Anonymous said...

"Yes. In terms of our contribution to human welfare? No. In terms of friends and allies? Definately not."

"Definitely" comes from "finite." Some writer and communications specialist.

Diane Silver said...

I am soooo out of time today to do post, and I will let Pamela continue to reply since she does such a good job. However, I am curious about one thing.

What is your intention in writing:

"Your ignorance on this topic is simply breathtaking."

If her ignorance is so breathtaking wouldn't it be obvious from your "brilliant" reply?

Pamela K Taylor said...

Pardon, but I'm afraid the breathtaking ignorance is not on my part.

Quoting here from Wikipedia:

"Reza Shah the Great, also Reza Pahlavi (Persian: رضا پهلوی‎) (March 16, 1878 – July 26, 1944), styled His Imperial Majesty, was Shah of Persia from December 15, 1925 until 1935 (at which time he requested that the international community refer to the country by its local name, Iran) and Shah of Iran from 1935 until September 16, 1941."

Please note he died July 16, 1944, and was Shah up until the British and Russians threw him out in 1941, whereupon he fled to South Africa in exile. He died in South Africa.

Again from Wikipedia:

"During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive.

Two different men, father and son, were Shah in 1941 and 1953.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

There are many excellent books on the history of modern Iran, I suggest you read one.

Pamela K Taylor said...

Uh, no matter what the root of definitely is, the meaning according to the Cambridge Online Dictionary is "without any doubt."

Or perhaps Cambridge University isn't authoritative enough?

Anonymous said...

"Two different men, father and son, were Shah in 1941 and 1953."

I was not disputing that. However, the man who was Shah at the beginning of 1941 was not the Shah at the end of 1941. His son was.

Here was your initial statement:

"Much as we didn't have the same President in 1941 as we did in 1953, so too Iran has had several different Shah's (sic) in recent history."

As I noted, this is incorrect. Again, Iran had just ONE Shah between September 16, 1941 and February 11, 1979. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi served as Shah during that entire period. In accordance with the Iranian constitution, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the head of state during that entire period.

You can't deny that fact, so just admit you were wrong.

"Two different men, father and son, were Shah in 1941 and 1953."

No ne disputes that. However, the same man who was Shah in 1953 was also Shah in 1952, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1948, 1947, 1946, 1945, 1944, 1943, and 1942. You seem to be suggesting that he did not become Shah until 1953, which is not the case.

"There are many excellent books on the history of modern Iran, I suggest you read one."

I've read a good number of them. You obviously have not.

"Uh, no matter what the root of definitely is, the meaning according to the Cambridge Online Dictionary is 'without any doubt.'"

I was referring to your spelling of the word, not its definition. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the reference was lost on you.

To Diane:

"If her ignorance is so breathtaking wouldn't it be obvious from your 'brilliant' reply?"

It should be obvious to all but the ill-informed.

Again, I suggest you stick to gay and lesbian issues.

Pamela K Taylor said...

As many view wikidpedia with suspicion, here are some other sites which describe the timeline and the advent of more than one Shah.

The BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/806268.stm

The Iran Chamber Society:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/reza_shah/reza_shah.php

The Persian Association at Tufts University:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/stu-org/persian/irannew.html

The Encyclopedia of the Orient:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iran_5.htm

The US Department of State:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm

Pamela K Taylor said...

We can split hairs on whether you would say in 1941 Reza Khan was shah since he ruled nine months of that year, but I'm still at a loss as to how the fact that the second shah ruled for the last three months of 1941 impacts upon the meat of what I had to say, which is that the Iranian people resent the CIA's role in toppling Mossadegh (a role admitted to by our own government) and by our support of the shah and his notorious secret police, and that that had a direct reflection in the Revolution and the hostage crisis.

Shah supporters living in the US may not be very sympathetic to that view, but Iranians still living in Iran are. Again, I refer you to Shirin Ebadi's memoir, Iran Awakening, an easy and accessible read.

And have you never made a typo in your life?

Anonymous said...

Pamela:

Wiki's information is fine for this discussion.

It says Mohammed Reza Pahlavi served as Shah from 1941 to 1979. Do you have another source that contradicts that?

The 1906 Iranian (Persian) constitution made the Shah head of state. Do you have a source that contradicts that?

At the Shah's suggestion, the Iranian legislative body known as the Majlis in 1952 made Mossadegh prime minister.

Do you have a source that contradicts that?

If you cannot, you must acknowledge that Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the head of state in Iran from 1941 to 1979.

Mossadegh forced the Shah to flee Iran in August 1953, but, with the help of the U.S. and Britain, the Shah was back in power by the end of that same month. I get the impression that you believe the Shah was installed at the leader of Iran in 1953 when, in fact, he was reinstalled after Mossadegh tried to take power that was not constitutionally his.

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think you're playing dumb.

"We can split hairs on whether you would say in 1941 Reza Khan was shah since he ruled nine months of that year...."

You would only be splitting hairs with yourself. Reza Khan WAS Shah during the first nine months of 1941. His son took over during the last three months of that year and remained the leader of Iran until 1979.

"...but I'm still at a loss as to how the fact that the second shah ruled for the last three months of 1941 impacts upon the meat of what I had to say...."

The point isn't that Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was Shah during the last three months of 1941. The point is that he was also Shah (and, thus, head of state) in August 1953 when Mossadegh forced him to flee the country. When Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was reinstalled as Shah during that same month, it was a restoration of the Iranian constitution.

Please explained to us how you can write, "Much as we didn't have the same President in 1941 as we did in 1953, so too Iran has had several different Shah's in recent history."

There were just two Shahs between 1925 and 1979. How far back is your "recent history"?

Saaleha said...

Excellent article. Cogent, and of course it helps that I agree with everything you have said. America seen from the outside looks exactly as you have described it. It takes a great soul to step outside of themself, rise above patriotism and see the world objectively. And the world would be a better place if more of us learnt to do this.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but this piece is completely nonsense. We have already covered Pamela's ignorance concerning the Shah (the very same man, not several Shahs as Pamela claimed) being the leader of Iran from 1941 to 1979. But considered this:

"It is probably not a good idea to simply leave a vacuum. The Arab states, or the UN should send peacekeeping forces to the country in an attempt to minimize the bloodshed, but what really needs to happen is something along the lines of Truth and Reconcilliation a la South Africa."

And this from the same piece:

"As much as I think the US ought to make feasible this sort of effort with monetary contributions, I also think that we need to stay out of the process. It must be 100% genuine and 100% Iraqi, with no possibility of a perception of outside interference."

Perhaps Pamela can explain to us how the process can be 100% Iraqi with no outside interference if Arab or UN peacekeeping forces are in Iraq.

Again, I think this blog should stick to gay and lesbian issues since the contributors have little or no knowledge of foreign affairs. Specialize in what you know.

Saaleha said...

Anonymous, maybe I'd take you seriously if you removed the mask

Anonymous said...

saaleha:

Perhaps I would take off mine if you took off yours.

Saaleha said...

but I'm not wearing a mask. Names up on the blog, location too. You do know how to find the bog, don't you? Its a simple thing really. Just click on my name in one of my comments, will bring you to my profile and from there to my blog. If you need helop, let me know.

BUt I do wear a veil when I leave the house, so you won't find a picture. But if you check out Islam Online, you'll find some of my thoughts there posing as essays ;-)