Resize Text: 
Full text article
| Winter 2008 CommentsOver Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the AbstractionOne day in the summer of 2004, while I sat in the western Baghdad studio of Radio Dijla, Iraq’s first all-talk station, listening to a deputy interior minister being interviewed, a man named Haithem called in. His story sounded garbled and frantic: late at night bandits had forced him off an unlit highway overpass, destroying his car, crushing his chest against the steering wheel, and shattering his leg. After twelve hours, American soldiers found him under the highway and called the Iraqi police, who stole his money and gun before loading him into an ambulance. The next day I went looking for Haithem... Full text articleThere is a great deal of sense in this article, especially about the poisonous partisanship that has obscured the complicated reality of what has been happening in Iraq. But I think Mr Packer has made an easy and somewhat misleading equivalence in his choice of recent case studies that are used to illustrate this poisonous partisanship, and that equivalence misses some of the real distinctions of both the pro and anti war debates. The fact is that the New Republic Bueachamp story and the NYT op-ed by two Brookings scholars were not simply equivalent, nor, really were reactions to them. The Beauchamp story was not simply challenged because the pro war side "knew" it was wrong, but because people, many of them soldiers themselves who had served in Iraq, found that there were obvious problems with it. And in fact these suspicions have been largely vindicated, and mealy mouthed though their retraction was, even TNR no longer stands by it. OTOH the reaction - on the prominent Anti-war sites like KOS or Firgodlake or Huffington Post to the reports that the surge may in fact be working really were an expression of prejudice immune to evidence or argument, and moreover time has revealed that it was the report rather than the reaction that more accurately reflected the reality of the situation in Iraq. There is no doubt that the toxic partsanship of 2003 would make it easier for Rumsfeld and Casey and Cheney and Bush to catastrophically mismanage the occupation. Many in the pro war camp should have been alive to this, knowing already that this administration had come into office with a glib and idiotic attitude towards the responsibilities of power as evinced by their stand on Kosovo or Bosnian stabilization missions. But it did not help when people who today claim to have been responsibly anti-war, were in 2003 happy to march with or more often behind the likes of ANSWER or StWC and to let the debate against the war be run by people like Moore, Chomsky, Galloway, Tariq Ali, KOS etc. I own 100K shares of Exxon stock. And I made a killing last year. So the argument that everyone's a loser is quite naive. From my reading of the daily headlines, it seems clear that by far the larger number of deaths in Iraq is the result of Sunnis and Shiites, both Iraqi and foreign, slaughtering each other. The violence and chaos tearing the country apart are attributable indirectly to America's invasion, but the direct responsibility is not America's. The best depiction of the war I have encountered was on stage in London--a play entitled "Baghdad Wedding" that captures, from the POV of the Iraqi middle-class, some of the dynamics Packer describes. Let's hope it opens in the US soon. Mr. Packer's article is touching and accurate only while incomplete. He lacks a worldview and historic insight. I thought World Affairs might like to know that some of us out there have a different view and for all its blunders commend America. Thank you, Mr. Packer, for this level-headed, morally sound piece of writing. It is so sad what has happened, and makes one feel so powerless. But we need more people writing in this way--speaking in this way, challenging Americans. I have often felt bombarded by so many different sides on this issue... I know this is a small thing to say and may sound self-centered but what a relief it is to see I am not alone. The question for me now is, what can I do? I will start by sending this article to many people that I know. It is hard to take this article seriously when even basic facts don't match up. First, American soldiers help Haithem and called the Iraqi Police before leaving. Then the police come and steal his money and put him in an ambulance. But then later, he says that an American said something to him as he was being put in the ambulance? Which was it? And why would he call it "humiliation" to be stopped by American soldiers when he was "careening down a side street"; what sounds like a law enforcement activity. Should I be humiliated in the US to be pulled over for a speeding ticket? I suspect one of the reasons for the 'dehumanizing' movie portrayals of the troops (vs. the 'humanizing' depiction of soldiers in Vietnam movies) is due to the fact that the Vietnam-era soldiers were largely draftees and not volunteers. In Vietnam, you had people who didn't want to be there but couldn't avoid service. That's a level of personal conflict and complexity that's missing when you know your characters chose to be in the military, some of whom joined up well after the Iraq occupation was already a disaster. If I were George Packer I'd have to find some way to paper over being dead wrong on the most important issue of the 21st century. Accusing liberals of not caring about Iraqi civilian deaths and characterizing a right-wing think tank apparatchik as center-left is one way to do it. In re: Mr. Wehtje's comment that " the reaction - on the prominent Anti-war sites like KOS or Firgodlake or Huffington Post to the reports that the surge may in fact be working really were an expression of prejudice immune to evidence or argument, and moreover time has revealed that it was the report rather than the reaction that more accurately reflected the reality of the situation in Iraq" - I'd tend to disagree here. There are certainly people with automatic anti-war prejudices who will simply say "no it's not" to any factually-based argument that the surge is working, but the fact-based argument against the surge remains - it's a distinction between TACTICAL objective success versus STRATEGIC objective success. The overall "surge strategy", at least as I understand it, was to put more troops into the most volatile and violent areas of the country to pacify those areas and give "cover" to the Iraqi government to move forward towards self-sustenance. There is no question, based even on the most simplistic statistical and anecdotal analysis of the situation, that the tactical objective has been pretty well achieved - violence is generally down, particularly in the areas where the surge was most strongly felt. HOWEVER - the argument that the surge is not "working" has to do with the fact that the tactical success (ie, pacifying the volatile areas) has had little or no impact on the overall strategic objective (ie, moving the Iraqi government towards self-sustenance). A "surge", by definition, is not an indefintely sustainable tactic, and the question begins to arise - if we are being asked as citizens to wait for an indefinite period to see objective success from the surge, at some point, don't we have to stop calling it a "surge"? February 20, 2008 2:02:21 PM EST Underneath the veneer of this good will gesture to placate both the pro-war and anti-war factions, Packer is (surprise!) anti-war. Upon reading this article a second time, he relishes in the details that portray Americans as evil occupiers and barely touches on those that show the good intentions of the soldiers. US troops are not there to kill innocents. Make no mistake about that. They're there to help those who wish to live peaceful lives. The only problem is that the dude planting an IED is indistinguishable from the one who's a surgeon. Humiliation is inevitable. Packer almost equates the magnitude of a) soldiers searching a driver careening on the streets with b) a soldier administering first aid to the same driver later on. I don't know about you, but I certainly think the amount of good done in that case outweighs the amount of "bad" in searching a suspicious vehicle. February 20, 2008 4:04:55 PM EST While it's true that for many on the left, hatred of GWB bleeds into a desire to see the project fail. However, I find it hard to believe that a war, if not born through straight out lies then out of gross, gross, gross, incompetence, nay, criminal negligence is somehow moral. Does the fact that when I drove drunk and I killed five pedestrians, one of whom was a serial killer, make getting behind the wheel moral? We might also ask whether it is moral to ask our soldiers to police a civil war. Finally, that negligence has succeeded in doing what no blog could ever do: make Michael Moore and those on the knee-jerk, anti-war left seem prescient and wise. February 21, 2008 3:33:14 PM EST I think the comments posted so far do a pretty good job of illustrating exactly what Packer is getting at - while everyone is treating the war as a fundamental issue (you're either for or against it) the truth is that there is far more at stake than standing on either side of a line and throwing jabs at each other. This war has been turned into a black and white issue by the press, pundits, and activists where those activists can feel smug and self-righteous about calling for an end to the conflict, even though by doing so they would be (presumably ignorantly) supporting something close to genocide by the backlash of power games that would instantly wash over Iraq and the blameless Iraqi people. We need this war to stop being a rain of sound bytes and good guys vs. bad guys stories. Its just not that simple. I am saddened that such level-headed views of the conflict aren't more widespread - and that, considering the paltry number of comments here, that few people are likely to ever read this one - save for those who already understand this point. February 21, 2008 3:33:31 PM EST I met my first Iraqis back in the early sixties in college. Those I kept in touch would have welcomed some kind of assistance, covert if possible, to remove Saddam.They did NOT want a military invasion with bombs dropping on the their cities, tanks blazing away at their buildings, and American soldiers in their streets - soldiers who had been told that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, had WMD's, and that people would welcome them with roses. How many young US soldiers knew of deadly 12 years of sanctions, the betrayal of those encouraged to rebel against Saddam after the Gulf War, the off and on bombing of Iraq that hadn't stopped since the early 90's, that Iraq was a socialist secular state that wanted no part of Al Qaeda or religious fundamentalism. How many US soldiers saw any Iraqis less than enthused at the invasion as possible enemies or terrorists and sent them packing to Abu Ghraib, where they were abused and tortured? How many innocent Iraqi families were gunned down at checkpoints simply because they didn't understand the English commands barked at them? Has George Packer read the Human Rights Watch report on the many innocent Iraqi civilians killed by Americans who were for the most part totally ignorant of their country or customs? Why don't these stories of the Iraq war proceed the way the events themselves did? You know: first the victor secures for himself the spoils (that is, the oil), and then everyone who isn't either fighting/dying or counting his money sits around and goes, "Huh. I wonder how we should end this thing." It took Packer 5 years to get half of the big picture. Maybe in 5 years, when Iraq will have suffered even more (and maybe Iran) he'll get the other half. It's never too late. I can't believe some commentators are still justifying the war. Fascinating piece. One small comment. Mr. Packer writes, "It’s curious that the Vietnam War, during which some Americans demonized soldiers, generated a number of movies that depict military personnel as thinking, feeling human beings, capable of committing terrible deeds but also possessed of insight, sorrow, and even redemption." No good movie about the Vietnam war was made while the U.S. still had troops in S.E. Asia. The significant Vietnam war movies -- Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Casualties of War -- all were made years after the U.S. had withdrawn troops from the area. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Hollywood has such a hard time making successful movies about the Iraq war -- there hasn't been enough distance, or filmmakers can't figure out a credible ending to their tales. Measured and insightful: this is what "nonpartisan" means. I'm a supporter of America's ongoing endeavor in Iraq, but Packer's reflective analysis reminds me that tragedy underscores the hopefulness I feel for a better future for Iraq. I think Mr. Packer grossly mischaracterizes the skepticism that greeted the Scott Beauchamp stories in The New Republic. They were NOT disbelieved before being published, by people who didn't believe such things were even possible in war; rather, they were responded to thoughtfully but with questions about the credibility of certain details, which led some to ask how we could in fact know that the pseudonymous author was even a soldier in Iraq and that the tales had any validity at all. As it proved, this skepticism was well placed. For instance, the Weekly Standard's first piece on it said: "Is it possible that American soldiers would be so sadistic when confronted by a badly burned woman, who may be a fellow soldier? Well, yes: Anything is possible when it comes to human depravity. But consider: these are enlisted men who, by the author's own account, don't know who this woman is or what rank she might hold. (Incidentally, wouldn't soldiers be able to distinguish a soldier from a contractor--especially if she is a regular at the chow hall?) Would they really ridicule her with raised voices in a public place, on "one especially crowded day"?" The article goes on to say that the Standard had contacted The New Republic and received corroborating details about where the events happened-- most of which, it should be pointed out, the magazine later withdrew. (For instance, TNR claimed the burned contractor event happened at Forward Operating Base Falcon; later this was changed to Kuwait, making nonsense of the implicit idea that Beauchamp was brutalized by things that happened in Iraq, which he hadn't been to by that point.) In short, the response was temperate, skeptical and responsible, and it proved correct in most cases-- investigative journalism, not rabid, unthinking partisanship. President Bush got one thing exactly right when he proclaimed "The future of the world will be determined by free people." The Coalition Partners have largely won the war against islamic extremism in Iraq, but they've lost the war in western media and the western sub-culture of "life as parody". I think the difficulty many of us who strongly oppose this war have in "acknowledging" any legitimacy for the position of the other side is that it is very difficult to imagine what a true American victory, presumably their goal, might actually look like. Moreover, the stated goals (stability, etc.) are, to me, as reprehensible as the war is. What is victory in Iraq? Would it be a quasi-permanent neo-colonial occupation over a semi-stable and fractured populace? Is it easy access to oil, or a military foothold in one of the most troubled regions in the world? Since it is very clear that the U.S. will not tolerate a truly democratic Iraq (one in which the government is allowed to actually disagree with our own strategic goals) and equally clear that we will not get one anyway, why should I support any aspect of this war? It is also not clear that continuing to be in Iraq, a problem of our own making after all, is actually saving anybody's lives. The problem is not that I do not sympathize with Iraqis or American soldiers or any other interested parties, its that there is absolutely nothing good, in my opinion, to be gained from our presence there. It wastes money, wastes people, and wastes American honor. And it could never have been otherwise. Those of us who knew this from the very beginning can only shake our heads and say "I told you so." Suberb article of depth, many thanks to Gearge Parker. This was a very good articule! Though I don't agree with everything you say you protrayed it in such a manor that made me appreciate your view. Right now I don'T care any more why the war started because we are stuck there now and no amount of speculation will change that. I think that the war was a mistake but it is good that Sadam is gone and now Iraq has a chance of freedom. I think that running now would be a great injustice to the lives destroyed and efforts made...no we can't leave yet but I think that the day will come when we can. If not I don't care I cannot with a good concience leave all of those people alone with hundreds of militant groups filling our void. I think that a good example of this is north Korea. They are a people with no will and no life other than there poverty and single goverment assigned job. What would happen if we left Iraq to its fate? I will say once more that even if it was wrong to start it that dosent make the problem go away. This is a profound and disturbing piece. If what Packer says is true then all we can say is that no discourse about Iraq can be anything other than slanted along one's preconceived preference. In short, the "truth" about the war is unknowable. For several years now I have been writing officials and newspapers to fashion a list of criteria by which to assess "progress" in Iraq, criteria which are more complicated than, say, the number of US or Iraqi civilian deaths, tho these certainly should be included. Such criteria could include: rate of Iraqi unemployment, hours of electricity and clean water, number of homes built, schools running smoothly, number of immigrants fleeing from or returning to Iraq, amount of oil and oil revenue, number of Iraqi led government supported soldiers. These and other criteria could serve as indicators of our degree of progress toward a safe and strong civil society. Sadly, no one I know has ever taken me up on this challenge. If they did, it would mean a gathering of data and the subsequent objective appraisal of our efforts. It would also entail a belief in a capturable objective reality --- something I fear, after reading this article, that is no longer available to us. One thing that is quite available to us tho, especially to the families of those killed, wounded or permanently damaged mentally because of this war, is the pain they feel, pain which the majority of us simply turn away from in favor, perhaps, of shopping or some other form of consumptive narcotic which our President once assured us is the best answer to those who "hate us." If it is possible, I would like to thank George Packer for his article "Kidness Amid Carnage" that was republished in Utne Magazine. I also see some of his other articles on your website which I will read. Finally something that feels real about Iraq. Thank you. It doesn't change a thing there but Thank you anyway. George Packer's fine and interesting piece seeks to introduce the reader to a reality that exists between two generally opposing versions - while the great majority of Americans are indifferent, as they are about matters that the cannot do anything about. However, I think Mr. Packer leaves a couple of necessary major factors out of the equation, and perhaps some significant details [dirty tails i call them] of his discussion of how we got to where we are; and so do some of the commentators. The Iraq invasion was envisioned prior to the election of Bush II by the group around him; alternatives to the removal of [the once our S.O.B.] Saddam Hussein existed; the weapons inspectors had to get out to be saved from Shock and Awe; the rest of the world was bullied; few tokens, aside Tony Blair, went along, Thus this war is similar to the German invasion of Poland; the lack of preparation for a postwar order is I don't think entirely to be laid at the feet of sheer old American s.n.a.f.u. ; this did not resemble the invasion of Germany and Japan, there were sensible plans in place, no matter that even some of those of course misfired. Oil clearly figured as a major objective, the securing of that ministry as the only one on entering Baghdad. All right: you kill six birds with one stone and you get to control the oil to boot. Obviously, it's an imperialist's gungho all the way, and you forget that you are the successor regime to the last imperialists who were there. And that you are supporting no end of S.O.B.s in the neighborhood! And you call all this "bringing democracy" while yourself hardly coming to power with powerful democratic credentials. Bremer's actions obviously hugely contributed to the dissolution of every aspect of the country. I myself am haunted by the inception of the insurgency, in fair Fallujah, the skittish American division there starting to shoot up Iraq wedding celebrations, and how matters evolved from there to the eventual complete destruction of what had become an insurgent magnet. Iraqi kids throwing candy back at U.S. soldiers - it must be a first in the many occupations that U.S. soldiers have experienced that. And I write this as a once occupied, conquered 7 year old, who became the "Pet of the OSS" in Bremen, in 1945 little nationalist though I had been just a few weeks earlier, entirely because I "got lucky" as some who are German born of my generation say, and my parents had been in the resistance, thus beloved of those fine chaps who were the OSS contingent, and the GIs as you got to know them and become Americanized and differentiate among them - hey, by and large the so-called regular American solider is pretty nice; you don't necessarily go around asking them what the limits of their niceness is, or how accessible their psychotic core. Now various militias, tribal leaders are "being turned around," paid off and armed; a billion dollar "embassy" fortress is being built; quite a few not permanent just "enduring" bases: my bet it that the US if it itself exists will be in Iraq for a hundred years; it is a dawg you got stuck in, you can't get out, but you can get in further and more permanently. |  Submit Your Comment |
|
Posted by Giorgio Francia | February 14, 2008 3:05:01 AM