Question Concerning Post War Iraq

[argive99]

I have been thinking alot about this and I am wondering if it was necessary to "nation build" in Iraq. Wouldn't it have been better to destroy the governmental infrastructure, all military capabilities, all hotbeads of Islmaic activism and then consficate the oil fields and leave?

I know this is an intellectual excercise because no President in the modern era would ever be so bold. But I'm trying to formulate in my mind what an Objective foreign policy / military strategy would have looked like using Iraq as a starting point which I'm not sure it should have been but which I'll allow for since its 'water under the bridge' now anyway.

The Bush Administration's strategy is to bring 'democracy' to the Middle East. It is hoped that this will lead to a stabilization of that region and eventually eliminate the phenomenon of globalized Islamic terror. Even though the administration has used altruistic language such as 'Iraqi freedom', the rationale is one geared towards American self interest. (This descripton of Bush's strategy was made by Binswanger on HBL)

I'm wondering was that necessary. Would destruction of the various Middle Eastern tyrannies *without* rebuilding them have been a valid option? Could we have just destroyed the governments, reclaimed our oil fields and established bases in tactical areas for future deployment with the warning that if they erected any government inimical to the US they would incur further attacks.

When this suggestion is made to Libertarians or Kellyite (or SoloHQite) 'Oists', they throw a shitfit (to use an expression); "typical arragant, warmongering ARI Objectivist." This alone makes me think it would have been a valid approach.

However, using the historical model of the Japanese, I wonder if the 'Nation Building' approach might have its merrits. I know the Japanese were in a far different place even during their fascist phase (they had been undergoing a strong move towards modernization during the 19th century) than the modern day Islamic Middle East. But I was reading an entry on Trazinsky's TIA Dialy which said that the Iraqi stock exchange is rapidly appreciating. Trazinsky made a good point that this could be a harbinger of a prosperous nation in the making.

So I am currently confused.

Last point. I hope this doesn't turn into a flame thread. I know opinions on the Iraqi subject can vary. Noumenalself made an interesting point in one of his last blog entries. He himself is begining to question the Iraqi war and in the comments section of his blog a rather educated and civil debate took place to the various rationales given. Noumenal's conclusion was that the answer to the question is difficult and not immediately apparent (his words). I agree which is why I am asking. I think even with an Objectivist presidential administration (I know - science fiction time) there would have been significant option to the way the war on terrorism could have been approached.

[DavidOdden]

Given how deeply the Baath party tentacles permeated the state in Iraq, I think complete destruction of all government in Iraq outside of Kurdistan was necessary. Kurdistan, on the other hand, had a stable and marginally acceptable government. You really need to be more specific about what you mean by destroying all hotbeds of Islamic activism. For example, incinerating the whole country in a huge nuclear fireball would destroy all traces of Islam and anything else, so that might be a bit extreme. How about bombing all mosques into rubble, and arresting all clerics? These would be counterproductive actions in the long run. But the elimination of Islam (along with other religions, but Islam especially) is the most important element in the equation.

Confiscating the oilfields would not accomplish anything in this context: it would make sense only when coupled with guaranteed control. When the Baathist government was destroyed, their control of the oilfields was ended. If you have in mind not just non-control by the Baath party, but actually giving the oilfields to Shell and BP (picking two random companies -- surely somebody must have decent historical records to see who if anyone has a legal claim), that's all well and fine except that since under a POG these companies would not have the right to form an army to protect their new property, then either the US has to permanently occupy Iraq, or we have to install a rights-respecting government (the latter is the right solution). This assumes that the Iraqi oilfields have to be under western control. Another option is to call upon the government of Kurdistan to protect the northern fields; or let them lie fallow until civilization returns. I would favor those two solutions.

Until somebody comes up with a magical way to destroy tyrannies without loss of American lives and wasting huge amounts of money, we should not invade and overthrow tyrannical governments unless they are actively working to attack us. We need an unambiguous and loudly articulated policy regarding attacks on America, and such policy statements can be delivered from afar by missle. So maintaining bases in Iraq would not be necessary to prevent attacks. In the long run, it is not in our rational self-interest to keep the Mideast crazies under tight control: it is in our self-interest to eliminate them from the face of the Earth. The key to that is the elimination of irrational Islamic influence, and to convert the crazies to rational beings.

[Yes]

The rebuilding of Iraq should have never been our responsibility.

But the Bush administration is truly fearful of world opinion and wants to cast America as the Good Guys- the Righteous.

[argive99]

To DavidOdden:

Regarding the oilfields: I agree with your points. If the US reclaimed them, the only way to protect them is with some sort of rights-respecting government and that points in the direction of nation building. The reason I am so concerned with the oil fields is because I don't want the Middle East to have monopoly control over the world's most important commodity. But to really accomplish that, I think the answer lies in domestic energy policy. For example, it seems to me that one of the best things the US could do would be to free up domestic energy production. Gerorge Reisman has written an article about this at his site. In essence, a free market in energy (removing environmental regulations, allowing the building of nuclear plants, selling off the arctic wildlife lands to oil drillers, allowing off-shore drilling, etc) would deprive the M.E. of billions (trillions?) of dollars in revenue which filters down to despots and terrorists and would profoundly effect the scope of US foreign policy. It would be easier to focus on simple destruction of terrorists rather than geo-political concerns of 'nation building.'

See Reisman's article here:

http://www.capitalism.net/articles/Super-W...c%20Freedom.htm

From your third paragraph, it sounds like you favor quick, lethal strikes without any (or minimal) further involvement. Hit hard (although not nuclear), send the message loud and clear and then leave. I tend to like that strategy. I say 'tend to' because of what I have been reading in TIA Daily. If Iraq does become a Western style nation with a prosperous market oriented economy, than the strategy would seemingly have worked (although I still think we should have charged Iraq more for it by at least having them pay it off from future oil production - something to that effect). Pehaps there was a legitimate option there. I'm still not sure.

To Yes: unfortunately your right. Seemingly everything Bush does is motivated by public approval or world opinion. Talk about a social metaphysician. And yet, I still see him as the only viable Presidential option.

[Guest jrshep]

Perhaps a year ago, looking at Dr. Hurd's site on his recommended movies page ( http://www.drhurd.com/booklist/video.html ), I noticed one, "Deterrence," which seemed worth renting, and I did so. I too recommend this movie. Perhaps some of you will find it relevant as well.

From Dr. Hurd's site:

Deterrence (2000) starring Kevin Pollak, Timothy Hutton

It's the not-too-distant future. Saddam Hussein's son has taken over Iraq and is credibly threatening the United States with a biological and chemical attack. The newly "selected, not elected" President must decide whether to listen to all of his pragmatic advisors (including his wife) - who insist that the U.S. not make a preemptive strike, as it will damage relations with its allies. Or: take whatever means necessary to quickly deter the threat. What does he do? You're not going to believe it, but you'll be glad you watched this amazingly real rendition of what is required of a President in times such as ours. Any day now, the events of this movie could quite literally become headline news.

[argive99]

jrshep: thanks for the movie reccommendation. I'm going to look for it tommorrow at Blockbusters.

One additional followup to my last post: If Ameica had invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam's reigime and military capabilites and had not provided a replacement government but had let it alone, there would undoubtedly have followed chaos, anarchy and then probably some theorcratic, cleric run dictatorship. I am a not a fan of nation building but after the decision was made to invade, I can't see how the administration could have done other than to put in place a replacement government. I am basing this on the conclusion that after post war anarchy the resulting political mess would have been more favorable to terrorists. Am I wrong in concluding such? Could it have been viable to bomb and leave? I really have no clear grasp on this.

[Guest jrshep]

You're welcome, argive. I hope you enjoy the movie. It's good.

As to your follow-up, I look at it as simply as looking at some individual who is threatening me. I have a right to defend myself, as do we all, and it would be lunacy for me to attack in self-defense and then offer to pay for my attacker's medical care and perhaps his education so that perhaps he'll decide, which he won't, that I'm not a viable target. Discussion with "him" is over. My consideration is only my own welfare.

If war was justified, and I say it was (excepting I agree with Peikoff that Iran is the primary source of the terrorist threat), then we should fight a war to cripple and destroy the enemy, to put him down on his knees, to break his spirit. The room for amiable negotiations ended long before 9/11, and 9/11 should have made that very clear.

It's the altruism that's undermining even our proper efforts towards protecting ourselves. More important than exactly what to do, in our own interest, over there, is that we make it clear that we will use force, as brutally as required, to protect this country. Let the enemy sort out the mess after we leave, if we do, and I mean leave in every manner, no aid, etc., or colonize the area. More than anything, those who would resort to terrorist (or any other kind of) attack against this country, need to be left in complete fear of the horrible consequences that they will bring down upon their own heads.

Edited July 31, 2004 by jrshep

[Praxus]

Why couldn't the oil companies higher private contracters to defend their oil fields.