Iraq Analysis: Thomas Friedman and the Never-Ending "Liberal Intervention"

UPDATE 0915 GMT: Here is what, in today's power politics, is what the rhetoric of "liberal intervention" props up. Thomas Ricks declares, alongside Friedman's piece in The New York Times, "Leaders in [the US and Iraq] may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come."

Seven years after the 2003 war and the violence and disorder that followed, Iraq has moved on to other political conflicts and issues. Yet, for some, this will always be a case of returning to the scene to construct victory or to build the excuse for absolution. War must become liberation, crime must become justice, tragedy must become redemption.

Iraq: How Serious is the Sunni Election Boycott?
Photos of the Decade: 2004 (Abu Ghraib)

One of those who persists is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. This morning Friedman, who used his "liberal" drum to bang loudly and incessantly for the 2003 invasion, opens his column:

From the very beginning of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and the effort to build some kind of democracy there, a simple but gnawing question has lurked in the background: Was Iraq the way Iraq was (a dictatorship) because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq was the way Iraq was — a collection of warring sects incapable of self-rule and only governable with an iron fist?

Initially, the sentence is so confusing to risk being vacuous. Don't be fooled: in its morass of words lies the self-belief that distinguishes not only Friedman but many of those who cling to "our" (and "our" has nothing to do with those who live in Iraq) righteousness in waging the conflict.

Friedman has little cognizance of what is happening in Iraq in 2010, but that is not the point of his editorial, which dismisses any need to consider today: "Will Iraq’s new politics triumph over its cultural divides, or will its cultural/sectarian divides sink its fledgling democracy? We still don’t know."

Instead, returning to his tangled opening, Friedman has a different, self-justifying mission: if the man who became (in)famous for repeatedly declaring that the US would triumph in "six more months" (Wikipedia even has re-defined a duration of six months as a "Friedman) can ever declare progress in Iraq, then the US and Thomas Friedman are vindicated for liberating the country from a dictator. If progress is elusive, then it is because of the inherent flaws of these frustrating creatures called "Iraqis". Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Let's be clear here. For all his chest-thumping of sincerity, Friedman's words pay little if any attention to the concerns or aspirations of those in Iraq. It is notable that the only source for today's thoughts is General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in the country, who Friedman quotes without any reflection. And it is notable that Friedman's ambitions are about the threat to the US, not to Iraqis, and about the fulfilment of "our", not "their", political visions:

The two scenarios you don’t want to see are: 1) Iraq’s tribal culture triumphing over politics and the country becoming a big Somalia with oil; or 2) as America fades away, Iraq’s Shiite government aligning itself more with Iran, and Iran becoming the kingmaker in Iraq the way Syria has made itself in Lebanon.

Let's be clear, however. This issue goes far beyond Thomas Friedman, who will continue to absolve himself at length and at regular intervals. Many commentators as well as public officials, sometimes with good intentions, advocated the invasion of Iraq for the liberation of its people. They usually did so, however, with little knowledge of and regard for Iraqis. Thus the 2005 exchange between Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker and Bush Administration official Douglas Feith:

When I asked...if the Administration was too enamored of the idea that Iraqis would greet American troops with flowers, [Feith] argued that some Iraqis were still too intimidated by the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party to express their emotions openly. “But,” Feith said, “they had flowers in their minds.”

Hundreds of thousands of deaths later, Iraq faces complex political, economic, and social issues. The reality is that the 100,000+ US troops, as well as numerous diplomats, advisors, and intelligence operatives, in the country are peripheral to the conflicts and negotiations. But Friedman, and those who share his viewpoint, cannot acknowledge that. There must be a vindication for what "we" sought to do for "them" in 2003. There has to be history's verdict, handed down in favour of the US.

Because, in the end, "liberal intervention" means never having to say you're sorry.

Comments

[Doug]

     If, for the sake of argument, he's totally wrong, naïve at best, destructive at worst, then what now for Iraq. How do Iraqi's help themselves?
     Some of this sounds a little like the argument about "helping" indigenous "savages" around the world:
        There was the romantic vision of the America Indians(Native Americans) as being at one with Nature and being a noble people. On the other hand, different tribes had wars against each other long before the Europeans arrived, and they were quite fond of torturing each other: many were not so "noble" and they left their garbage at campsites. The Mayans in South America committed horrible and brutal torture of their enemies which they proudly wrote about in their stone carvings.
    So the question becomes: how do you preserve the best of a culture, educate in modern ways, tolerate customs, but not save the most brutal parts of a culture. A culture that oppresses its own people has some part of its structure that is dysfunctional. A dysfunctional family can be saved but not by tolerating abuse to the children. Outside intervention is needed and "abuse" can not be considered a "family tradition". So too on a country level, leaders can say that "abuse of the people" is a "family tradition" and mind your own business. Our family is poor, so give us money or trade but don't interfere otherwise, they effectively say... When it comes to families, some social workers fail, and the UN has not been a good social worker. Bureaucracies have their obfuscations and petty rules and hence the client dies.

[Barry]

Doug

Have you ever seen the video where Saddam (at a meeting) first announces that he is taking over and calls out a long list of names of those he said were "traitors" - never have I seen such fear on the faces of men. They knew what savage hell-hole they lived in - and knew what they were in for.

Iraq, Iran - all same-same!!

Barry

[Doug]

Barry,
Yes, I saw that one. I know what you mean. It's incredible that there seem to be no leaders anywhere in the world who are not Machiavellian -- incredible annihilation of all that is human from the unintended consequences of both pacifists and hawks...
idealists and pessimists... do-nothing pseudo-moderates... warriors and arm-chair generals... Is there anyone who is not wrong to some degree? Anyone even close to a solution to the cycles of violence and the rise and fall of civilizations into periodic dark ages? --- each oscillation of greater magnitude until final destruction? I think it's raining-- too bad God has no tears and it's only water...

[Barry]

Doug

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - I believe that

It is also said that God died in Auschwitz - I also believe that.

Barry