Big Fish and Iraq

More on the recent exchange I have been having with Dr. Delacroix. I like what I see so far, and it appears to me that I am beginning to get under the old French immigrant's skin. This is, of course, pure joy for someone like me. His words are indented and in italics. I re-started the argument as such:

Come out! Come out! Wherever you arrrre!

Dr. J: Although I believe that feigning ignorance is a good skill to learn (especially while traveling abroad), I am afraid I cannot use this wonderful tool in the context of this debate. For, I know now why you have not gloated about your hard-earned point on Iraq being a democracy, and I can see why you have avoided the bait that I had left for you. Big fish, as you know, are quite weary of being hunted.

Let us go back to my musings on democracy, and how I stated that I use the idea and the institutions behind democracy rather loosely, especially in the context of FREEDOM.

After all, the Soviet Union held elections with adult suffrage, and Singapore is world-famous for both upholding the rule of law and avoiding the topic of elections. Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia held elections while being occupied by the Soviet Union’s military, and today’s post-colonial states all enacted bottom-up revolutions with the intent of implementing democratic reforms. All of these societies have (or had) democratic elements in them, yet how many of them are considered to be free? Singapore, perhaps? The one that bristles when the topic of democracy comes up?

This is where I bring up your sloppy boast to Martin that George W. Bush was the only president to “do something about democracy” in the Middle East. You are very adept at weaseling your way out of a corner (I’m sure that the fact that you used to be French has something to do with this), but you cannot escape the fact that GWB’s policies have not brought freedom to the Middle East, but rather death, violence, and destruction – democracy notwithstanding.

Lost in our earlier battles are my subtle (at least I thought so) critiques of democracy itself, and how the concept by no means insinuates that freedom will follow democratic reform. Lost also in my argument amid your proclamations if imperial success at implementing reform is the fact that your examples – France, Germany, Japan and Italy, the Southern confederation – all had ideas on how to integrate democracy into their own conceptions of what freedom means to their societies.

So, too, do the people of Iraq, and I do not believe that they are satisfied with the status quo (hence the car bombs, the ongoing ethnic and religious persecutions, and the presence of a foreign military) of their freedoms or their democracy. If they were, I am sure that there would be calls by Baghdad for the Pentagon to fork over a hefty rent fee, like Germany and Japan, and stay for awhile (and for Christ’s sake, these two states were defeated in a heavily industrialized war in which the dominance of vast swathes of the globe was at stake. Hardly Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).

Has all the death and destruction in Iraq (on both sides) been worth it for a democracy that is incompatible with the Iraqi conception of freedom? Wouldn’t it have simply been wiser to get rid of the economic sanctions and the foreign aid that was entrenching Hussein further and further into veins of Iraqi daily life? The answer is, as we both know, “yes”, but such policies would be impossible in the political climate of Washington today. And here Dr. J, is where I feel it is pertinent to highlight the crux of my argument: we don’t need to look to Baghdad, Damascus, or Tehran for enemies of republican government, individualism, free trade, the rule of law and internationalism – the most important concepts to borne out of Western civilization – because the most vile and cunning of these enemies make their beds in the central capital of this awe-inspiring republic. We would do well to focus on our own ideas of freedom, lest we wake up one morning and find ourselves shackled in chains and working for survival rather than success.

Remember Dr. J: The nation-states, empires, and confederations that we defeated in those horrific wars all those decades (and centuries) ago were beaten by a superior foe, but the superiority of that foe derived from the institutions and principles embedded in that society: republican government, free trade, individualism, the rule of law, and a healthy belief in world peace. These principles are sorely lacking in the United States today.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot one other aspect of LIBERAL democracy that I think is important for its continued survival: the acknowledgement that the right to bear arms and form militias is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away by government, and the legal institutions (or lack thereof) that make such an acknowledgement so. I don’t know if the American military has banned militias and guns in Iraq, so you’ll have to let me know. Holla back Dr. J!

Dr. Delacroix responded in kind:

Glad to be giving you a chance to review your understanding of democracy. A comment and a question.

Comment: France is not a democracy because it does not recognize any civilian right to bear arms. Even hunting guns can only be held through a system of collective responsibility.

Question: a serious question. Please, try to answer it before you send another interminable commentary: Was democracy imposed on Japan at the end of a gun after that country lost a war decisively? It's a yes or no.

Speaking of "weaseling."

Oooo! He's dirty! But I think that my response was even better:

Dr. J: I can't wait to hear what kind of paltry excuses you can come up with after this volley! Old habits die hard, I suppose...

"Was democracy imposed on Japan at the end of a gun after that country lost a war decisively? It's a yes or no."

No. Here is my explanation for such an absurd conclusion: The Japanese signed a peace agreement in 1945 after the Democrat Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb on them. So it would appear to me that the use of force against Japan - a highly industrialized homogeneous nation-state - was not implemented in order to force Japan to adopt democracy. Rather, the ensuing constitution (ratified a few years after their surrender) that was adapted needs to be more properly considered in a light that views the Japanese as cooperating partners in the drafting of their new constitution.

After all, aside from a few communist demonstrations, there was no violence directed against American occupation forces. There were no car bombs. There was no sectarian or other religious violence aimed at Daoists, Buddhists, Christians, and/or other Shinto sects. The Ainu were officially (if not practically) recognized as citizens of Japan. The Japanese people had just spent four years engaged in a war effort against a people that they eventually lost to - a first for their society if I am not mistaken. Thus Japanese society had a history of working together for a common cause; they were used to cooperating for political purposes. When one state and/or culture attempts to impose itself upon another there is resistance. So I think that these facts imply that the Japanese were willing partners in the process of re-organizing their democracy, rather than recipients of a beat-down for democracy.

Remember, the war aims of the United States in regards to Japan had nothing to do with imposing democracy by force on that country. The sole aim of the war was to defeat a rival industrialized state that already had democratic institutions and, prior to the undertaking of imperial expansion, a decentralized political process that had stemmed from their feudal era and that had evolved into a constitutional monarchy - much like what happened in Western Europe throughout the 19th century.

Thus, democracy was not imposed by force.

I would also like to take a minute to address your sarcastic claim that "France is not a democracy because it does not recognize any civilian right to bear arms. Even hunting guns can only be held through a system of collective responsibility."

It would appear to me from this statement and your recent brouhaha with my fellow libertarians on one of Martin's posts that you view democracy as the end of all ends. If this is not the case, then please correct me.

To me, it seems as if democracy itself is to be viewed in relativistic terms (and in tandem with concepts like freedom), as we would both agree that France is democratic, but that their laws concerning guns, labor, religion and a whole assortment of other social issues are anathema to our view of democracy. Again, I point to the fact that China has universal suffrage, and that some Chinese citizens view their state as a democratic one. Mubarak regularly held elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood pulled in something like 20% of the parliamentary vote in the last one held. That sounds a lot like democracy, and some Egyptians no doubt feel like the current wave of democratization is not really going to be more democratic.

So, given that democracy is thrown about in such relativistic terms by all societies throughout the globe, I think it would be safe to say that undertaking a war (in the middle of the Islamic world, no less!) for such a vaguely defined and relativistic concept is not only stupid, but dangerous as well. I think the perfect case in point would be the Serbonian Bog that our military is currently mired in over in Mesopotamia.

The burden of proof is now on your shoulders, Dr. J. Show me a successful example where "democracy" has been imposed through war, and I will throw my support behind Washington's wars for such a concept. If you cannot do so, then I think a public denouncement of the war effort on your part is in order. I urge you to do the latter. As an aside, I would like to throw at you all of the recent security measures that have been undertaken by the American state over the past decade that have severely restricted our liberties, and ask you to consider these restrictions in tandem with the ongoing war effort by Washington in Asia.

Who has gained freedom by the invasion and occupation of Iraq? The car bombs, ethnic cleansing, and sectarian violence lead me to conclude that freedom has not been attained through military force. Democracy? Ok. But so what?

Have we gained freedom from the Bush administration’s endeavor to impose democracy throughout the Middle East?

Not bad, huh? This is the nasty reply I got in return:

The Us was the lead actor in a war against Iraq in 1991.That was under UN auspices, for what it's worth, and the US was heading a vast international coalition. The coalition won. The Us imposed an armistice on Iraq. (Armistice means: We will stop killing you if you do X, Y and Z.) The same Iraqi government violated the armistice about five hundred times. Ten years later, the US and some of is original allies resumed the war that was never stopped (still with UN sanctions, still for what it's worth). After defeating the warlike regime of Saddam Hussein, the UN and its allies decided not to rule Iraq as a US dependency or as a dependency of the UN. Instead, it decided to set up a secular republic. No country protested. And here we are; There is a secular republic in Iraq governed through elections that are fair, free and open (even former Saddamites are now allowed to run as if Nazis had been allowed to run in Germany in 1954!)

You can twist and turn all your want and find essential differences between Japan and Iraq that boil down to the color of the opposition leader's hat, but there is no significant constitutional difference between Iraq 2011 and Japan 1955. THat Japan was squashed more thoroughly than Iraq means nothing in connection with the description of what the US built in both countries.

Pres. Bush and his neo-con team achieved exactly what they set out to achieve. I deplore that the process was more messy and costly in every way that they hopes and that it took too long. (They deplore it too.) That was never our argument. You keep changing the subject because it's easier than changing your mind.

The Us imposed democracy on Japan at the end of a gun in 1945. It's still working pretty well. (Better than Chicago or New ORLEANS, THERE TOO.)

Finally, Dr. Delacroix is beginning to take my arguments seriously again. I posted the following response:

Dr. J: with all due respect, I fail to see how I changed the subject (again!). I answered your question about Japan to the best of my ability and received nothing in reply (more on this in a minute). I also took the liberty of responding to your comment on guns and democracy in France. I fail to see how my answers changed the subject. I did throw some questions at you at the end of my argument, but those were also on topic and were supposed to get you think more broadly about the consequences (intended or otherwise) of the failed policies of the Bush administration in Iraq.

In response to my argument about democracy being imposed by force in Japan I got the following from you: "The Us imposed democracy on Japan at the end of a gun in 1945." There were no facts and there was no argument against my own (on Japan) to be found anywhere. You simply brushed aside my argument as if it were a nuisance, and not worth the time to consider, to rebut, or even to bury it. You did the same to my counter-argument about France in 1945-6 being the same thing as Iraq today. You simply appealed to authority and rashly excused my comment as if it were meaningless, and - in doing so - continued to change the subject to fit your view that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was a glorified and far-thinking response to both promoting democracy worldwide and fighting global terror networks.

Again, one of us is guilty of changing the subject to fit his views, but, as the world-famous rapper Ice Cube said: "I ain't tha one!"

I am still waiting for some serious rebuttals against my arguments that democracy was not forced upon the people of Japan and France (and Germany and Italy and wherever else you may dig up to find excuses for the Bush administration's policies). Until then, I am going to take more liberties to address yet another example you have thrown my way (I can't help it! I love swimming with the big fish!): that of the invasion of Iraq. Personally, I am glad that we have finally been able to get around to debating the merits and the intricate history of Iraq, as this is what we have been attempting to debate throughout this onerous process (although I must give thanks to you for allowing me to take so many proverbial trips around the world lately to and brush up on my history).

"The Us was the lead actor in a war against Iraq in 1991.That was under UN auspices, for what it's worth, and the US was heading a vast international coalition. The coalition won. The Us imposed an armistice on Iraq. (Armistice means: We will stop killing you if you do X, Y and Z.) The same Iraqi government violated the armistice about five hundred times. Ten years later, the US and some of is original allies resumed the war that was never stopped (still with UN sanctions, still for what it's worth)."

Yes, all of this factually correct, and as such, I do not disagree with any of it. But I must strenuously point out that this historical brief only bolsters my argument that each of the states we have thus far touched on has a history and a culture that is unique to it. Do you agree that the situation in Iraq is very different from the one in Japan, or Germany, or the Southern confederation? Its a 'yes' or 'no' question Dr. J.

"After defeating the warlike regime of Saddam Hussein, the UN and its allies decided not to rule Iraq as a US dependency or as a dependency of the UN. Instead, it decided to set up a secular republic."

Yes, and this is exactly what the colonial powers of 19th century Europe did as well, for what its worth. The results of such social engineering had been catastrophic for the societies that were colonized, and I don't see anything that suggests that this pattern will change.

One other minor detail I'd like to point out is your assertion that Iraq was set up as a secular republic. Read Article 2(1st)(a) of the Iraqi constitution. Oh! I'll just make it easy for you, as I'm sure you don't want to be burdened by a student's requests for information right now: the article explicitly states that Islam is to be the official religion of Iraq. That FACT makes the idea of Iraq being a secular republic rather absurd, wouldn't you agree?

To be clear, the new constitution also highlights total protection for religious minorities, but as any decent libertarian knows, religious minorities in Iraq had it far better under the Hussein regime than under the new parliamentary democracy set up under the auspices of the West. In fact, some libertarians even argue that modernizing fascistic regimes are better at protecting freedoms than "democratic" ones (see here for an example). I digress.

"No country protested."

France and Germany, the fourth and fifth largest economies in the world (in 2009 as measured in GDP) officially objected to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Beijing, Moscow, and Ankara all objected. These states all have significant amounts of global economic and strategic clout, too.

"And here we are; There is a secular republic in Iraq governed through elections that are fair, free and open (even former Saddamites are now allowed to run as if Nazis had been allowed to run in Germany in 1954!)"

Ok, aside from the FACT that Iraq is not a secular republic, this is true. Boycotts notwithstanding, the elections in Iraq are free, fair, and open.

"You can twist and turn all your want and find essential differences between Japan and Iraq that boil down to the color of the opposition leader's hat, but there is no significant constitutional difference between Iraq 2011 and Japan 1955. THat Japan was squashed more thoroughly than Iraq means nothing in connection with the description of what the US built in both countries."

Ah! Another excellent point raised by the good doctor, and one that inadvertently lends even more credence to my argument. Most constitutions in the world today are structured exactly the same way. Costa Rica, the US, France, Switzerland, Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Iraq, etc., all have similar constitutions. Yet I think that we would both agree that these societies all have drastically different economies, drastically different levels of democratic participation, and drastically different cultures.

Possessing a democratic constitution in no way secures the liberties of individuals in a given society. Laws and mores of a people have much more influence over the affairs of governance than do constitutions, no matter how well-crafted. This is probably why most post-colonial states, upon gaining their freedom from Europeans, descended rather quickly into dictatorship (this, along with the fact that two new post-war powers believed dictators made far better puppets than democracies).

To undertake, by way of central planning, a mission as pompous as creating a democratic-republic out of a dictatorship in the middle of the Muslim world does not guarantee anything but future uncertainty. No conservative or libertarian could possibly promote such policies and be ignorant of the consequences of them. Such dreams are traditionally in the realm of the socialists.

And my point about Japan was not that they were beaten more severely, but rather that the vast majority of society had taken up a cause at which they were beaten. So the realization that Japanese citizens had to cooperate with the victor (and, later, partner) was felt throughout the broad whole of Japanese society.

"Pres. Bush and his neo-con team achieved exactly what they set out to achieve. I deplore that the process was more messy and costly in every way that they hopes and that it took too long. (They deplore it too.) That was never our argument."

Yet this is precisely the argument of libertarians in regards to the whole invasion and occupation in the first place. The whole reason for opposing wars for democracy overseas is because of the unintended consequences that arise out of central planning. It has nothing to do with being a pacifist, or a pansy, and everything to do with the ill-effects that government planning has on societies, whether at home or abroad.

Nobody doubts (ok, at least I don't) the good intentions that the neoconservatives had in regards to Iraq and democracy in the Middle East. But who - WHO?! - is responsible for raising the point that the deprivations to society STEM FROM well-intentioned central planners more so than conservatives and libertarians? Does the invasion and occupation of Iraq deserve a special status in regards to central planning? I am curious to know.

With this being said, I think that now is a good time to put the idea of neoconservatism to the dagger (I am not yet big enough for a sword). Like all of the other fanciful, thoughtful, and wonderfully complex ideas that arise from the great stalk of classical liberalism, neoconservatism's time has come and gone. Its grand notions of a fully democratic world, of an end to history, and to the implementation of these ideas through the barrel of a gun if necessary have been masterfully put to the real-world test and they, like all other notions of a different path than classical liberalism's, have failed miserably.

Holla back Dr. J!

Dr Delacroix ended the debate with this:

Brandon: Stop presenting yourself as a put upon poor student. That's tiresome. You don't seem to want to stay put.

You keeping adding conditions to the definition of democracy. Islam is the official religion of Iraq. If I checked I would find that some sort of Christianity is "official" in Germany and elsewhere in northern Europe. It does not matter a fig as long as there is freedom of religious practice. Many of the conditions you seem to impose seem irrelevant such as the economic clout of France and Germany. You could not be satisfied pointing out that one of my clear statement s was factually incorrect ("No country objected.") Being right does not seem to be enough for you.

I did not grasp your comeback on Japan and the use of a gun to impose democracy. For me it's still an open and close case.

Again, this is not a court of law; "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply here. My impression is good enough. My impression is that there is nothing anyone could say that would ever make you admit that Pres. Bush deliberately initiated a process in Iraq that led to a functioning democracy. If it were forty years from now and Iraqi democracy were the envy of the Swiss you would still have objections, I think!
Moreover, I am not sure I am talking to anyone but you on this Facebook.

I am sorry but I have to beg off. You are a tenacious and smart person but I suspect you are also mad. Don't take this as a mean insult; many geniuses are mad.

Ps Technical comment: I suspect you place too much faith in the uniqueness of national cultures. It's a common American intellectual illness. It's rooted in part in parochialism, in part, on a strange kind of envy. There is little chance that you know much of anything about the topic of national cultures. The fact that you sometimes argue with me about France, of all countries, should give anyone, including you, pause.

I know this sounds petulant. It's not. I am always dying to say this. You were just standing in the right place!

Not quite the outcome I wanted, but I know now that he will be thinking about my arguments for the next little while.