"Compassionate Colonialism"
It's a term Michael Hirsch came up with in a Newsweek piece he wrote about how we might never be able to leave Iraq. Yes, it's the old we broke it, we have to stay to fix it story...but maybe we have to stay there for many, many years, as we're the only thing keeping the country from breaking totally apart:
What's clear to me after two weeks here is that despite some success at handing off matters to the Iraqis, progress is so frustratingly slow that we Americans may never be able to leave. The new Iraq is growing up around our presence and is as dependent as a child. Nothing illustrates this better than the endless bickering over the new Iraqi government. This is what the Americans and British have been calling for, agitating for, and banking all their hopes on. If only the Iraqis would "get governing," President Bush said recently, then the U.S. withdrawal timetable and hopes for a Mideast model could still be borne out.Yet the more the parliamentary stalemate drags on—and make no mistake, even if a new prime minister is announced soon, the haggling will continue over myriad cabinet posts—the more it becomes clear the center may not hold in Iraq without a long-term American presence. Not necessarily the 140,000 troops we have now, but at least a core force that's left behind. Why? Because the centrifugal forces that are tearing the country apart are moving faster than our laggard efforts to keep up. On the ground here, you can feel this society fissuring every day, as you watch the Americans desperately try to paper over the cracks. And what the American people need to understand is that there is really only one dominant cohering force left in the country: the American presence.
...How does compassionate colonialism work? First, you create an Iraqi army that will never be able to stand on its own (the postwar Japan and Germany model)—an army as addicted to U.S. logistical support and know-how as any junkie on heroin. Washington just recently awarded humvees to the Iraqi Army as its "heavy armor." But forget about tanks ("[The Iraqis] shoot at everything and anything," says a frustrated Sgt. Diaz). American helicopters and planes rule the skies here, and that's not going to change for many years. Then, you insist on a friendly government, while letting the Iraqis think it is they who are deciding to be friendly (though this "good will" is driven by the always hovering threat of a withdrawal of support). And finally, you give your companies an inside track on long-term oil contracts—again by noting that their presence in Iraq guarantees U.S. support—without actually expropriating the oil.
> Not necessarily the 140,000 troops
> we have now, but at least a core
> force that's left behind.
Um... I'd hate to mention it again, but... Oh wait, he does it for me:
> (the postwar Japan and Germany
> model)
Interesting numbers:
http://www.slate.com/id/2105295/
> And finally, you give your
> companies an inside track on
> long-term oil contracts
Have you heard any friends bitching about the price of oil lately? Or about oppression in China?
There are a lot of problems with our invasion of Iraq, and even those of us who supported it know that precious opportunities are being squandered by Administration incompetence. But Europe was never going to clean out Iraq or kick the Middle East forward, and neither was thirsty Asia. We wish Iraq (and the surrounding nations) had more experience and affinity with capitalist democracy, but it's largely our fault that they don't. It's good that we're giving them this shot.
We uncapped the tensions that may fragment Iraq, but it's not like there was something noble and admirable holding it together in earlier times.
Crid at April 20, 2006 11:05 AM
So, what will gas prices do if we leave Iraq today?
Radwaste at April 20, 2006 5:37 PM
Wild assed-speculation? The same thing as if we stay: Rise on global demand.
Crid at April 20, 2006 5:52 PM
Leave a comment