Ambassador Crocker's Faulty History Lesson

The New Republic: Comparisons Between American History And Iraq Don't Work

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Michael Currie Schaffer.

---

George Bush's acolytes have never been particular sticklers for accuracy when it comes to their analogies. Supporters have variously compared the president to such different personages as Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. They've been just as varied in evoking bygone parallels for Bush's mission in Iraq. The situation there has over the past four years has been likened to post-surrender Germany, post-armistice Korea, and post-Tet Vietnam. But perhaps the most troubling metaphor was the one rolled out on Capitol Hill last week by Ambassador Ryan Crocker: Iraq, he explained, is just like ... the United States of America.

Have too many years abroad dislodged the veteran diplomat's memories of eleventh grade American history? Not quite. "Our efforts to build the institutions of government were not always successful in the first instance. And tough issues - such as slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights and state rights - were resolved only after acrimonious debate and sometimes violence," he said in his prepared remarks before Congress. Hard to argue with that, although Crocker pushed it a bit in asserting that "the debates currently occurring in Iraq on de-Baathification reform and provincial powers are akin to those surrounding our civil rights movement or struggle over states' rights." (As I recall, states-rights rebel Jefferson Davis allowed a rather higher level of democratic discourse than militia supremo Moqtada al-Sadr, and the city of Montgomery at the very least had a functioning municipal bus system on which it could discriminate against Rosa Parks.)

Tamp down the hyperbole, though, and it's easy to agree with Crocker that our own historical troubles mean we shouldn't think we're better than the Iraqis. Fair enough. Unfortunately, his remarks weren't part of some touchy-feely school exercise designed to make kids in Washington and kids in Baghdad realize they're all part of the same human family. Rather, they came during a week when Crocker and his fellow administration insiders were busily selling a policy of indefinite involvement in Iraq. As such, it's worth unpacking the metaphor a bit, if only to show the absurd contortions required of even the smartest, least political members of the Bush gang in the name of selling its war without end.

The essence of Crocker's reasoning declares that the situation in Iraq between 2003 and the present is roughly akin to the situation back home between, oh, 1776 and 1965. In the United States, dealing with the fallout from George III's overthrow required a failed first government, a complex Constitutional convention, several grand compromises over the expansion of slavery, a devastating civil war, a constitutional amendment over suffrage, and blood on the bridge at Selma before we got the open democracy we now have. In Iraq, he suggests, the fallout from Saddam Hussein's overthrow will take similar amounts of heavy lifting. They'll have to accomplish all those same tricky acts of statesmanship that faced us - splitting up revenues, agreeing on national economic policies, juggling individual rights against state needs, and, you know, learning not to slaughter one another in large numbers.

So if it's all a nice neat parallel, it must also hold that the strife of those painful nineteen early decades would have been eased by the presence of 160,000 heavily armed foreign troops. After all, the Iraqis aren't so different from the Americans - and the administration insists our presence is a boon to them, right? Just cast eyes back on this alternative American history: an army of selfless Mesopotamians helping us through the awkward years of states' rights conflicts and civil-rights traumas. While our independence-era leaders were rattled by uprisings such as Shays' rebellion, a surge of Middle-Eastern troops might have made the republic's birth more peaceful. Later on, when the Dred Scott decision or the election of Abraham Lincoln brought our rickety young republic to the brink of collapse, a video conference with the determined leadership back in Baghdad might well have soothed tensions among the hot-headed American leaders. If only we'd been so lucky!

Surely, these foreign allies would have taken the right side in every conflict. During the battles over slavery, they'd never have let themselves be swayed from doing what's right by self-interested concerns over things like the cheap supply of slave-cultivated cotton. And when it came to the identity battles of the twentieth century, rest assured that our pals on the Tigris would have displayed the deep knowledge of our cultural nuances than we in turn display in contemporary Iraq. Just imagine how some well-read Mesopotamian military man of this fantasy version of the past - let's call him General al-Petraeus - would have dealt with the provocations of the civil rights era. Not for a minute would he have been swayed by all that segregationist rhetoric about stability and outside agitators: I'll bet a surge of coalition forces into metropolitan Birmingham would have shut up Bull Connor once and for all. It's hard to imagine how such noble goals might have had any unintended consequences, like empowering demagogues or encouraging meddling from the dastardly folks across the border in Mexico.

In such an alternative scenario, the Mesopotamian role in America might have caused some tension back in Baghdad, as some Iraqis wonder what all this spilled blood and treasure was buying them. And when they did, the leadership would have had to argue that to pull out - say, in 1963, as the murder of Medgar Evars hinted at a fresh round of civil rights violence - would be an act of irresponsibility. Why, those Americans will slaughter one another, the administration would have reasoned. And so they'd have vacillated, unsure of which way to go, unclear about what aspects of the American scene were an accidental by-product of the foreign presence and what parts of it were just endemic to the national culture of that troubled faraway land. At a hearing, perhaps some respected diplomat could have pointed to a successful new strategy in a once-restive state (Arkansas after Orval Faubus?) proved that success was possible after all. I suspect the folks back home would have bought it, too, because the political consequences of acknowledging their own futility would have been just too big.

So, Crocker's right: Iraq, in the end, really might be a lot like the U.S.

[prohb]

Irag in no way is like the US! Democracy was able to take hold here because of our strong natural resource base, temperate climate, and abundance of water in key areas. What does Iraq have? Oil and sand and very limited water....and of the three only oil is a money maker (you watch - water will be a major issue there soon). So this leads to dictatorship or a feudal system....which is what the sheiks are in the Anbar Province which the Bushies hold up as their great success. We need to recognize what is there....allow the partition to occur with UN supervision ("Iraq" is an artificial, western created country anyway).....with the only real democracy being a council to determine the alllocation of the oil monies. Nothing else will work!

[tucano2]

The construction of the USA Embassy in Iraq will remain an empty abandoned monument to stupidity and arrogance.

[ioweign]

Posted by Draftreid at 12:16 PM : Sep 22, 2007

Bush war is illegal !

The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in both the U.S. and Britain have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration''s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified. Similarly, Tony Blair''s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, while concluding that a reasonable case could be made that U.N. Resolution 1441 authorized military action, acknowledged that the invasion could be challenged on legal grounds.

Several prominent groups of international lawyers endorsed a statement that the U.S. invasion was "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War." This opinion was echoed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it (the war) was illegal."

[wogerwabbit]

"FeelJihadi wants Al Qaeda to win and to bring Sharia rule there. He brings up Nuremberg to castigate us - yet he is right there with his fellow Nazis - those of the Islamic variety."

Draftreid, get real you stinkin'' coward. You want daddy Bush to protect you and make you feel safe bacause you have no balls of your own. You sniveling neocon know nothings make me sick. Drown the government in the bathtub, but protect me too! A$$holes! "We''re the good guys!", you insist, but you bless torture and other reliably documented unspeakable atrocities this administration has committed in Iraq and around the world, the gravity of which, apparently has no meaning to you because you are so shallow.

For the tiny percentage of Muslim people in this world who are fanatical wackos, you would condemn all to death and smile at the thought of it. You are a true representation of the god you worship... for God is love, and you are hate... pure and refined.

Who taught you this? Who lied to you and led you to believe these lies? There are many forces at play in the world, and many are unseen.

Think about it.

[jonny_chaos]

all in the family

"In 1979, Bushs first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Ladens, in Arbusto.

[jonny_chaos]

Fraud by Arbusto jr. "There is substantial evidence to suggest that Bush knew Harken was in dire straits in the weeks before he sold the $848,560 of Harken stock," asserted U.S. News & World Report. The magazine noted Harken appointed Junior to a ''fairness committee'' to study possible economic restructuring of the company. Junior worked closely with financial advisers from Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Company, who concluded "only drastic action could save Harken."

[rafterman1]

===The war in Iraq was a war of liberation for a people slaughtered, starved, and gassed by a brutal thug.===

Since when do you neocons give a c r a p about Iraqis or anybody else that isn''t you? You only started caring about the welfare of the Iraqi people after all of your other excuses for invading Iraq proved to be false or outright lies.

[jonny_chaos]

The Republican Party is the party of American Values.
Blind obedience to the leader = American Values.

Democratic Party is the party of American Values.
Blind obedience to the leader = American Values.

Are you all really so cowed? look, everyone, from both partys are scumbags. the biggest asskiss in the land sits in the oval office. thats the way the game is played.

a good democracy is one where nothing gets done. keep your laws out of my freedom.

you anti-freedom types with your wiretapping and airport screening need to find another country, i suggest Iraq or Iran. those people know how to manage their populaces, total oversight, and harsh penaltys.

blow me bush fans.

[jn122736]

The war in Iraq was a war of liberation for a people slaughtered, starved, and gassed by a brutal thug.
Posted by Draftreid at 12:16 PM : Sep 22, 2007:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As reagan would say:

There you go again. Liberating Iraqis was third or forth down the line from WMD''s, Mushroom cloud, Violating UN sanctions, et al.

If Bush had relied on Liberating Iraqis as an excuse/reason he would never have gotten the approval to invade, Even from the rubber stamp republican congress at the time.

[bluestardad]

BRING CHARGES AGAINST BUSH AND HIS NEOCONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS!

THIS WAR WOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY THEN!

[taxguydave]

Actually, US troops have used chemical weapons on Iraqi civilians, just not nerve gas. White phosphorous was used in the massacre at Falluja, and has probably been used elsewhere as well. Given a choice, I think I would rather die from nerve gas poisoning than be slowly burned to death with white phosphorous. At least nerve gas kills fairly quickly.

Also, what is a daisy cutter, other than a weapon of mass destruction? A 15000 lb bomb used as an anti personnel weapon (in other words, to kill people), it will kill pretty much anybody within a 300 yard radius.

Chemical and conventional WMD''s used on civilians in a war of aggression. Sounds like war crimes to me. Also sounds remarkably similar to Bush''s justifications for attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein.

[draftreid]

FeelJihadi spews his Nazi vomit once again.

The war in Iraq was a war of liberation for a people slaughtered, starved, and gassed by a brutal thug. Notice how quickly they got rid of him. No Western-style trial or plea bargain there. The Kurds are Liberated - they abhor Al Qaeda and Al Sadr. There''s no adverse development of WMDs under a thug, nor training camps for Islamonazi terrorists anymore.

And now the people of Iraq themselves, tired of Al Qaeda, have even turned on them.

FeelJihadi wants Al Qaeda to win and to bring Sharia rule there. He brings up Nuremberg to castigate us - yet he is right there with his fellow Nazis - those of the Islamic variety.

Hopefully one day the people in this country will have had enough of cowards and traitors like FeelJihadi, the MoveOn dolts, and the non-serving cowards in the Democratic Party and hold them accountable for advocating defeat to a philosophy just as evil, if not more so, than Feel''s Uncle Adolf''s ever was.

[feelfree1]

MyIDonCBS,

Thanks for the support. It looks like you beat me to the punch.

[feelfree1]

sandycat2,

"Bush''s war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam."

"The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never sanctioned Bush''s war. Bush and the officials in his administration are committing the crime of aggression."

"International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

"Bush''s aggressive war against the people of Iraq promises to kill many more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson labeled the crime of aggression "the greatest menace of our times." More than 50 years later, his words still ring true."

www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml

[myidoncbs]

sandycat2, ignorant of international law, said, "Wars have never been illegal as far as I can see".

Here''s some info to rectify your ignorance:

"Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN."

"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war ''essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.''"

So, FeelFree1''s reference to the "illegal fraud-based war of aggression against Iraq" is totally correct. Perhaps sandycat should take his/her own advice and "educate yourself".

[itchyb-2009]

Old adage: When you find yourself digging a deeper and deeper hole, the first thing you do is put down the shovel. RECENT history, sandycat, indicates that by numerous and varied accounts from all directions and all manor of political persuasion, we are indeed in a hole. It is a false analogy between Iraq and U.S. history. We are an occupying force, and Iraq is not in charge of their own destiny as long as we remain to prop them up and through our hired goons like Blackwater continue to dictate our desires, it ain''t gonna happen.

[sandycat2]

What program is the US following? Wars have never been illegal as far as I can see. Nazis got hanged after WW2 for gasing Jews and Gypsys and others who they considered the wrong type who were civilian men, women and children. Where has the US gassed any civilians? Saddam did gas the Kurds as I recall. American soldiers who have operated outside the rules of engagement have been court-martialed and if found guilty have been punished. FeelFree perhaps you should freelfree to get out a history book and educate yourself about history. Your bias is showing.

[feelfree1]

What this writer, along with many Democrats, seems to miss, is that the illegal fraud-based war of aggression against Iraq WAS a complete failure, from the moment that it was waged. The subsequent failures, and multi-front defeats are irrelevant as compared to this primary failure.

Many top WWII era Nazis were sentenced and HANGED at Nuremberg, for following a program that is remarkable similar to what our country is doing today.

The whole world will celebrate when the Bush regime and their accomplices are finally held to account for their actions.