© 2003-2006 David Moles

Chrononautic Log

«  Goulash, catagelophobia, and degrees of offense
  Main  
Faster squirrels, smaller cages  »

politics

Maximum Proconsul

12 o'clock, March 22, 2003

On the question of how postwar Iraq should be governed and by whom, retired US Army general Wesley Clark has a nice editorial in the Washington Post. We shouldn’t get our hopes up that reconstructing Iraq will be as easy as reconstructing Japan.

Japan was not at odds with itself. It possessed the raw material for postwar reconstruction: an educated, industrious population; some surviving infrastructure; and modern industrial experience. Imperial Japan was also largely free of the problems of large, restive minorities... Defeat, when it came, was palpable, complete and unquestioned... Literacy was high, and the culture valued hard work and discipline... Almost none of those conditions will be present in post-Saddam Iraq.

This certainly dovetails with what I know of modern Japanese history. (And while I can’t claim to know the Mideast the way I know Japan, what I do know on that score certainly dovetails as well.)

Nor should we be looking for another MacArthur:

We have many highly capable, well-educated generals... but none of them alone can “do a MacArthur” and shouldn’t try. The search for such a figure is escapism, a desire to turn over responsibilities to someone, give him a title — and few resources — and hope the problems go away.

General Clark is a former c-in-c of US Southern Command and a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, so he ought to know whereof he speaks. It’s years since I read William Manchester’s American Caesar. I should dig it out again.

Comments

I think Clark is dead wrong on nearly every point.

My response is on my blog, here.

—— Derek James, 2:33 PM, Saturday, March 22, 2003

It makes me wonder if France and Russia might be making a pretty shrewd gamble here. If the U.S. attempt to rebuild Iraq as a democracy proves to be a failure, or possibly an outright disaster, than that would tend to vindicate the French/Russian position and discredit the U.S. position. If U.S. interventionism is discredited at home and abroad, it would tend to shift the emphasis back to multilateral venues like the U.N. where France and Russia have more opportunity for influence.

I would be interested to get your thoughts on this.

—— Bob Stokes, 7:49 PM, Saturday, March 22, 2003

A more charitable way of saying that would be that Russia and France expect the invasion of Iraq to end in disaster, and don’t want to be associated with it either directly or through the UN. I doubt their calculations are that straightforward, though.

—— David Moles, 8:45 AM, Monday, March 24, 2003