MORE ON IRAQ AND LIBERALIZATION: Yet more randomness from me.

First, Oxblog collected their excellent series on the prospects for liberalization in the Islamic world. A must-read.

Second, thanks to Body and Soul, but I should clarify: I don’t by any means believe that warless regime change, or internal resistance movements, are lost causes. I just think they are a lot harder than most of the discussion I’ve read from the anti-war movement suggests, and they require the willingness to fight and die for an uncertain future. Hey, that sounds kind of like the war… which was my point–all of the options for US security are dangerous, and all of the options for Iraqi liberation require suffering and uncertainty.

Saying, “OK Iraqis, you don’t need war, just form a successful internal resistance movement!” strikes me as the same as saying, “Well, Iraqis, y’all gotta do your own dying on this one, we’re staying safe at home.” Which is an acceptable policy stance, but not, I think, the kind of thing that shatters long-hardened fatalism in repressive countries.

In one of my last anti-war posts, I allowed as how one possible good consequence of war if it came might be simply that it was something new, it disrupted the status quo, and thereby gave people an excuse to hope for something better. I am extremely wary of making “here’s how the war is going” statements (it hasn’t even been a whole week yet), but if the news of armed anti-Baathist resistance in Basra is correct, it looks like the war may be strengthening internal resistance, which would be just excellent. [EDITED TO ADD: Or maybe not–I shouldn’t have posted this without knowing much more than I do about what the anti-Ba’athists in Basra actually want.]

I’d like to write more on cultivating the kind of fervent positive belief that fuels warless regime change, but I’m not sure what to say except: 1) Christianity, and 2) build a middle class with Internet access. If I think of anything more innovative I’ll say so….

Third, here’s an exchange between me and reader Rob Dakin (more from him later). Dakin: Eve:

The regional model for a popular uprising in Iraq would be Iran, rather than Poland. Clearly, if the Iraqi people loathed Saddam Hussein enough to die in the effort to remove him, he could not prevail any more than did the Shah of Iran. At least those Iraqis who died in the effort to free their own country would do so of their own free will. As it is, many of them are sure to die anyway, killed by forces beyond the scope of their own moral design.

Even if the United States is able to ‘free’ them, will the condition they find themselves in be true freedom?

But all of the above is probably moot, because, in reality, Iraq is not similar to either Poland or to Iran in terms of homogeneity of culture and religion: it is more like Yugoslavia, and destined to fall apart regardless of what the Western powers want to see happen there.

–Rob

Me: “At least those Iraqis who died in the effort to free their own country would do so of their own free will.”

Yeah, this is true and powerful, and it’s one of the reasons I opposed war for a while. My post was more an

attempt to point out reasons to think the anti-war movement’s word-pictures of a popular Iraqi uprising were not very likely; it would of course be the best way to oust Saddam Hussein, but it would also take a very long time. And every week before the revolution, more prisoners would be shredded, more women assaulted by hired rapists, etc.

“many of them are sure to die anyway, killed by forces beyond the scope of their own moral design.”

Hmm, I remain very much unconvinced that fewer Iraqis would die in a sudden rebellion (or, more likely but

[even] more casualty-heavy, a slowly-growing resistance movement) against Saddam Hussein than will die as a

result of this war.

Your points about the difficulty of creating lasting peace and the beginnings of liberal government in Iraq are well taken, and very troubling. Like I said, I just hope and pray things work out more or less OK. “More or less OK” will probably (nothing is certain…) be better than continuing Saddam mayhem, followed by chaos or takeover by Uday-the-Insane at his death. IOW none of the options on the table were good. US invasion wasn’t the best option for the people of Iraq, but also, I think, very far from the worst. Although so much depends on what happens in the next several years, rather than the next several days.

Yours,

Eve

Dakin: Eve–

I think that I would agree with most of what you say (at least as an expression of optimistic alternatives to my gloomier points) were it not that you have not addressed my closing point, which is that no matter how the war goes, you will still end up with Shias in the south, Sunnis in the middle, stateless Kurds in the north, and an assertion by the coalition forces that the current boundaries of Iraq will be preserved. All of this does not add up to peace and liberalism any time soon, even if Iran stays out of it, I’m very much afraid.

[bit of email about something else deleted by Eve]

Best,

Rob

Me: 1) Yup, you’re right, I didn’t address the Iraq-splintering point, simply because I don’t think I know enough to have even the half-informed opinion that I have on the other stuff. Mark your calendar, b/c journalists rarely say we don’t know about a subject! I just don’t feel like I have anything to contribute re Sunnis, Shias, Kurds.

2) I guess my points could be construed as optimistic. They’re optimistic about the possibility that the US

military can set up something better than the hideous status quo, anyway. But I also am very dismayed at how

pessimistic I am when I think about what the possibilities were for non-military regime change in Iraq. I would very much like to think that every repressive country in the world could have its velvet revolution, and soon. Megan McArdle (Jane Galt) got on my case for my oversunniness about that, prompting my post.

Yours,

Eve

Dakin: Well, the Shias and the Sunnis have been fighting since approximately the day after Mohammad’s immediate successor died, as I understand it. (That’s a long time.) The Kurds have been without a country and have survived as a bullied minority in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq since the days of Western colonial power. We have often been reminded lately that Iraq was ‘invented’ by Sir Winston Churchill in 1922 (or whatever–I’d have to look that up). Invented nations don’t have a good track record for historical cohesion.

But, as you say, we can always hope. My main fear is that the U.S.-led coalition will not be able to defeat Iraq without finally resorting to making war on the civilian population. I know of no war in this century where that was not been necessary in the end, despite the best of preliminary intentions (later used to pave the road to Hell).

Pray for peace,

–Rob

Me, final: Jacob Levy has some interesting thoughts on possibilities for Iraqi federalism, here and here. And as long as we’re pointing out the grimness of all available options, I should note that if Iraq is going to fall apart in the wake of US invasion due to Sunni/Shia/Kurd tensions, would it not be at least as likely to fall apart whenever the Ba’athist regime fell?

Finally: more on the Basra water situation. Via The Corner.