'We meant well' still doesn't cut it

I've long resisted calls from my friends on the left for an immediate withdrawl of all American troops from Iraq. While I certainly agree we should never have perpetrated the aggression in the first place, I also subscribe to the theory of "you break it, you buy it." We broke Iraq, now it's our responsibility to fix it.

An immediate withdrawal of troops in such circumstances seemed to me like it would inevitably lead to chaos. Chaos is not a favorable circumstance for principles like democracy and human rights, usually championed by those on the left.

I also praised Iraqis who voted in February's elections. The elections were imperfect. Merely holding an election doesn't mean you have freedom or democracy, contrary to what the president and his cabal would have you believe. It doesn't change the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. But you have to start somewhere and you can't change the past.

Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, according to conventional wisdom. Of course, this is usually said by Bush administration apologists who want you to forget the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. Not "Iraqis will be better off," but "Iraqis are better off."

And frankly, for a while, I believed that. Grudingly, mind you. And I knew the occupation wasn't going as smoothly as the Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow Polyannas had predicted. But I figured at least life was a little better than under Saddam and certainly better than it would be if we pulled out and left a vacuum. Yet, I'm starting to wonder if that was more a case of what I wanted to believe affecting what I should believe.

There are certain fundamental moral differences between the occupation and Saddam's regime. As indifferent as he may be to the plight of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe President Bush actively wants them to starve. As indifferent as he may be to the torture of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe the president actively ordered this. As indifferent he may be to the daily terror suffered by ordinary Iraqi citizens, I don't honestly believe the president is instigating the terror.

But while the president and the administration may not want these things, they are certainly the result of their poor judgements. The president and his defenders may indeed mean well. But as I wrote in a long essay last year, 'We meant well' doesn't cut it anymore.

Intentions do not give you immunity from criticism or self-examination when the actual effects of your actions go against those very same intentions.

At one time, immediate pullout sounded like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Now, 'we must not leave no matter how ineffective we are' is starting to sound like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. 'We must stay the course no matter how much damage it may (however inadvertantly) be doing' is starting to sound like an idea based on a combination of blind machismo and simple inertia, rather than a sound, rational policy.

Ultimately, the US-led occupation is failing to ensure security and other basics for too many Iraqis. The administration has been more concerned with showy things they can use to pat themselves on the back. Elections are great, but you can't eat a ballot paper. Freedom of speech isn't worth much if you're afraid too afraid to leave your house in order to exercise it. Having freedoms written into a constitution or the law code mean little if there is rampant insecurity and too little food.

The International Herald Tribune ran this piece on the threat to Iraqi women by the new political system.

Saddam Hussein's sadistic, murderous dictatorship was no feminist paradise. But Iraqi women still managed to maintain access to educational, professional and personal opportunities denied to many of their sisters in neighboring Arab and Islamic countries. Now the future of these freedoms is in serious question. The dominant bloc of Shiite religious parties, along with their candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, want Iraq's new constitution to be directly inspired by conservative Islamic religious teachings derived from the Koran.

Is this the 'freedom' [said breathlessly] that thousands of coalition troops have died for? Is this the 'liberation' that countless (er, uncounted) Iraqi civilians have unwillingly sacrificed their lives for?

One of the most astonishing things I've read was this piece which claimed: When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8% [at the end of 2004].

Better off?

I think this is why I, unlike many human rights' proponents, am generally opposed to so-called humanitarian interventions (not that the Iraq aggression could ever be confused with such). Humanitarian interventions, by which is meant the aggressive use of military force against bad guys, is often proposed to combat human rights abuses.

With the exception of genocide and the worst crimes against humanity, I am generally opposed to such military interventions. Not because I want atrocities to continue, but because the military intervention itself creates its own humanitarian crisis.

The first rule of human rights advocacy must be, "First, do no harm." The solution must be less damaging than the problem; and there is little that damages society more than war.

Iraqis are also increasingly living under the threat of kidnapping. While kidnapping (especially of foreigners) for political reasons has made headlines, the old-fashioned kidnapping by gangs for money has made life miserable for many ordinary Iraqis.

Those gangs are why 17-year-old Hanan Zageer is now driven to school by her father Jewad.


It's only a 10 minute walk from their home to Hanan's school, but after what happened two weeks ago she will not take the risk.

"A gang of criminals tried to kidnap my daughter just outside school," Mr Zageer tells me. "If it hadn't been for the guards she would have been abducted. Now I drive her every day."

If the US is going to remain in Iraq, it must establish security. Yes, I know it's easier said than done, but if we can't do it, we need to get out and let someone else do it. Security is one of the things that dictatorship usually does pretty well. In fact, superficial stability is really the main selling point of dictatorship. Continued insecurity will make it much more likely an authoritarian regime will rise to fill the vacuum.

Look at Russia. It was a country that lived under an authoritarian regime for decades. After the collapse of that regime, it was replaced by a purpotedly democratic government but one that couldn't offer stability. As a result, Russians quickly turned to an elected czar, who they hoped would tame the wild west mentality with an old-fashioned dose of strong arm tactics. Democracy needs to produce concrete results in people's every day lives in order for them to have confidence in it. Merely going through the formality of electing a bunch of politicians, while a necessary condition, is not sufficient.

Unfortunately, I fear that such an honest assessment won't happen. Americans don't like to admit that we CAN'T do anything... even something which we've traditionally had contempt for, like nation building.

Many Americans who supported the invasion want to believe we're doing the right thing, simply because their own hearts are in the right place. They don't want to believe that good intentions can lead to bad results. Americans are incurable optimists. While that optimism is at the root of our greatest successes, it is also at the root of our greatest failures.

The only way to prevent Iraq from becoming one of our greatest failures is to do a fair, honest assessment of what we're doing there. That analysis should not be based on what our intentions were (past tense), but on what the effects are (present tense). It should not be based on what's actually happening, not on what we choose to see or ignore.

Ultimately, it should not be based on a cumulative tally of the past but on the impact of the occupation on the present. Too many people cite the demise of the butcher Saddam to defend EVERYTHING that is being done in the occupation. "Sure, twice as many Iraqi kids are hungry than under the dictatorship, but hey, George W. Bush gave Iraqis their freedom [said breathlessly] and that's the most important thing!"


Even if you think the war was a good idea, even if you didn't shed any tears about Saddam's capture, take a fresh look at the PRESENT state of occupied Iraq. You don't have to agree with everything the hippies and leftists say. Just ask this question of yourself: is occupied Iraq going in the right direction? Are Iraqis better off now, ALL things considered, then they were right after the fall of the regime?

I thought that a hasty withdrawal of occupation troops would inevitably lead to chaos. It seems clear that there's already chaos even with the occupation force. It now becomes reasonable to ask if the foreigner troops are inadvertantly a cause of that instability or preventing further instability? Regardless, we have an obligation to ask ourselves that question (and, God forbid, ask that of Iraqis). We have an obligation to ask ourselves that question and answer it honestly, without letting ourselves be blinded by machismo, chest-beating or good intentions.

If the occupation has reached the point of diminishing returns, then maybe it's time to have enough integrity to say "We did the best we could, now it's time to get out."

'We meant well' STILL doesn't cut it anymore. If Iraq is not going in the right direction with us there, because of us there, then it's time to do the honorable thing and leave.