Hope amidst pessimism
This is a very pessimistic and cynical time for Iraq and America, right now.
Charlie Rangel's proposal of a new draft illustrates everything that I find foolish and counterproductive and nonsensical about Democrats, right now.
Henry Kissinger sounds a dour note that demonstrates that foreign policy experience does not equate with constructive policy advice.
And amidst all of the glum and helplessness that so many people feel in Iraq, largely because their cynicism about both means and ends in Iraq and in much policy are self-fullfilling...
Jeremy Greenstock has an excellent proposal for a political resolution to the underlying issues in Iraq along with a commitment to military resources to create as much security as possible to deal with this terrible mess. Jeremy's idea for a nationalized oil industry is questionable and would need to be reformed with free market commitments at some point, anyway. But otherwise, Jeremy's proposal is solid and a much more constructive alternative to Kissinger's similar proposal of an international conference with a weaker commitment to democratization in Iraq.
What distinguishes Greenstock's proposal from Charlie Rangel's cynical suggestion and Henry Kissinger's pessimistic prognostocations is that Greenstock is committed to a political resolution consistent with a more democratic Iraq even if that resolution may fall short of our ideals, but without giving up on the ideals.
So many people, Kissinger and Rangel included, confuse their cynicism and disappointment with realities they don't like -- an unstable Iraq, for Kissinger; the President declaring a war that Charlie disagreed with for Senator Rangel -- with some constructive approach to resolving the issue.
What Kissinger and Rangel are stuck on is the same failed way of thinking about the situation. The problem with the war was not enough force and control. For Rangel, the problem was that there wasn't enough controls on the President to declare the war. For Kissinger, the problem was not working to place Iraq under the thumb of a military strong-man early on, rather than committing ourselves to a democratic Iraq (while simiultaneously and nonsensically supporting the President's commitment to democraticatization, internationally).
When, no matter how much people keep fucking this up, the problem is not that there is not enough force or control over the situation. Those are control issues on the part of Henry and Charlie, who just can't come to terms with the fact that neither of them can control the things that they are trying to control.
The problem from the beginning, as Jeremy well argues, is that we have not taken democratic commitments seriously enough over the course of the war. My critique, up front, was that we did not consult with Iraqis who both needed to make a commitment to an invasion and needed to lead a revolt, I believe, to undercut insurgent efforts to expel the American infidel. Iraqis lives were at stake and noone talked with Iraqis about a possible invasion. Americans failed to discuss the option with Iraqi opposition and militia groups so that they could lead an effort and undercut perception and reality that Americans were invading for their own purposes. It was American hubris at its worst and we are paying the price for it.
And Jeremy argues well, I think, that the most pressing problem, today, is not military victory, which as Henry argues is not a viable option for resolving this situation. The problem is that democratic dialogue amongst all interested parties, both within Iraq and outside of Iraq, is not taking place to ensure an outcome that works for everyone's interests, including and especially Iraqis.
Jeremy is right. There is no reason that we need to lower our sights for democratization of Iraq. Is there going to be all kinds of obstacles and setbacks for many, many years to a more mature Iraqi democracy? Of course. They have no experience with democracy. But does that mean that we should resign ourselves to a civil war or to an opppressive Shia or Sunni majority or an autocracy with a military strong-man (Kissinger's suggestion, by the way, you notice, completely mirrors his advice and active support of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and to the assassination of at least one Chilean general by Kissinger directed assassins; so perhaps Henry is being a bit self-serving in his cynicism and, at the very least, perhaps we should be a little skeptical of that already failed advice)?
Of course we should not resign ourselves. Henry's experience in Chile should be reason enough for him to be skeptical of his own cynical advice and is perhaps a sign that Henry has not learned the lesson from that very tragic mistake on his part.
Resigning ourselves to the ugly realities that could take place in Iraq does not constructively deal with those realities, even if they fall short of our expectations. And, in the meantime, the cynicism undermines constructive efforts like the one proposed by Jeff Greenstock to take democratic approaches, as much as democratic outcomes, more seriously in finding a resolution that gets us closer to a more stable, more democratic Iraq, even if that reality falls short of our democratic ideals (ideals are not meant to be fulfilled completely, at all times, after all; they are blueprints for making our lives better and standards by which our efforts are judged as successes or failures).
A more open, more democratic, more participatory international multilateral conference of all parties internal and external in Iraq would go a long way to moderating sectarian conflict and insurgent resistance to an Iraqi government with final authority for the use of force, to dealing constructively with the concerns of involved parties, and with developing an Iraqi government that would satisfy various parties. Will this government fall short of our expectations and democratic ideals? Absolutely. But will a commitment to the fulfillment of those ideals get us closer than absent that commitment. Definitely. And it creates the space for criticisms of the Iraqi government and Iraqi society for the ways that they fall short of those ideals.
As William Safire, Alexis DeToqueville, and others have made clear, genuine democracy is not rule over, it is rule committed to self-governance and self-determination. Genuine democracy is not about coercing others to do our will. It is about empowering people to do their own, to do so freely, and out of that free will, to do so responsibly. And to responsibly engage others about and resolve important issues in ways that account for mutual interests.
People who think of democracy as, primarily, formal institutions to coerce their will are not committed to democracy genuinely at all. That kind of democracy is the most minimal commitments of those not committed sufficiently to freedom and equity as the foundations for self-determination and self-governance which are the most sustainable route to a well-governed society and the primary virtue of free societies and free peoples.
It is the primary virtue of free societies that those advocating more autocratic arrangements and free peoples alike persistently take for granted: that freedom creates the room for a society of self-governing people of virtue rather than the illusion of virtue in a society consumed with power, control, repression, retribution, revenge, destruction and self-destruction. Free societies are the only path to real virtue. Every other society is bound up in repression and self-deception. Palestine, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba are excellent examples of the latter; societies so wrapped up in their repression, retribution, revenge, destruction, and self-destruction that they just cannot face their failures of conscience and governance. They cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional cultures they have created and they cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional governments that they often support, and, in the case of Palestine and Iran, that they elect.
Free and democratic societies do not leave us free of vice. No culture does that. Free and democratic societies leave us more free, able, and likely to take responsibility for our vice and to embrace our virtue, in our personal choices and in our choices for governance.
What Charlie and Henry lack that Jeremy maintains is a genuine commitment to democracy. Not democracy as a means of controlling those you disagree with or democracy as a means of controlling a population. What Jeremy has that Charlie and Henry lack is a genuine commitment to democratic means and attitudes toward parties that takes seriously peoples' concerns and the self-determined concerns of Iraqis, not as obstacles to an external priority that must be imposed without consulting parties. Our goal of democracy for Iraq is a good one. But it is one that must be practiced more substantially, not just opined about and then imposed with a democratic process that lacks commitment to democratic substance, especially the need by Iraqis to a self-determined political solution to the crisis they face currently rather than impositions from America or elsewhere. Democracy, at its heart, is about engagement and ideas to resolve important problems that people face, not a process by which we manipulate to impose our will. To use the levers of democratic power in ways that undermines democratic conversation and engagement is not genuinely democratic. It is getting your way. Democratic means that other people are taken seriously other than yourself. And they are taken seriously equitably -- meaning on their own terms and by their own self-determined sense of their needs and interests -- not using a majority vote to shove your ideas down other peoples' throats.
The latter is democracy of the cynic. It is not genuine democracy, it doesn't take principles of equity and freedom seriously, and people who advocate it should not be taken seriously.
Democracy, at its heart, is about people equitably resolving problems in a way that takes freedom seriously and which looks after the interests of everyone equitably, not one person or one group at the expense of others.
And Henry and Charlie don't get that, frankly, because neither of them take seriously the interests or concerns of others nearly seriously enough.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Forcing others to do your bidding is not democratic. It is manipulative and dishonest and wrong.
And people who do it don't take commitments to freedom and democracy seriously enough. And they shouldn't be taken as seriously in a discussion about how to democratize.
Here's to hope amidst pessimism.
Love,
Ben
