State Of The Onion, April 2007, Part 1
Unpeeling the layers

Who are we to judge the product of our own work? Is there any way to judge? We are all in this together, and we all create the world we live in. We have to live with the results. We may be guided by noble and Godly ideas, or by ignoble ideas and passions, but by our hands and our wits, we devise our environment, and we live with the consequences. How well we fare depends on us.

The noble ideas are that we live in peace and harmony; that we create an economy in which all of us prosper, and have safety nets for when we fail - together we share our risks; that we have opportunity to pursue our careers and interests; that we have good health throughout our lives and into our golden years; that we have a government that represents our interests, protects us, and makes sound decisions, and through which we collectively enable our endeavors; and that no one is repressed. These are values. In the US, these might be called the pursuit of happiness. How are we doing?

This year I'll focus on the issues of Peace and the Economy (May/June). Next spring, The Environment and Health. Peace is the immediate concern. For Health and the Environment, there are a number of trends developing since the 2006 State of the Onion.

Peace

The Middle East -

Now that public sentiment is against the war in Iraq, as voiced in the last election, it has become a requirement for candidates to say they always opposed the war... something like saying, "I smoked marijuana, but I didn't inhale." "I disagreed with the war, but didn't oppose it." Whatever.

The British Times Online reported March 11, 2007 that life in Iraq is getting better. The majority of Iraqis in Baghdad are optimistic and believe that life is better now than under Saddam Hussein. Most (61%) do not believe they are in a civil war despite sectarian violence in which one in four have lost loved ones. They think the military operations (Surge) will disarm the militias. There is little fighting in the four southern provinces, and violence in Baghdad will diminish when the Americans leave.

ABC News did an exhaustive survey and in a report with the subtitle Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss, tell us that more than half of all Iraqis have had a close friend or relative killed. Less than half of those who felt safe near home a year ago still feel safe today. Most (83%) feel very unsafe. Over half feel that the essentials in their life are going backward, and well under half have any expectation that this will improve.

The ABC survey also showed that things don't bode well for American presence in Iraq. While only 51% think it is acceptable to attack Americans, nearly all Sunnis believe it is OK. Fully 78% want the US out of there... but not too fast... they might actually need us... when they are not using us for target practice. Just warms you all over, doesn't it? Well, no one expects a baby to be thankful for suckling.

Whatever. This is an analysis, not entertainment news. People continue to suffer horribly in Iraq, and the US bears some responsibility, having begun a noble effort. "What a fine world this would be..." "Now here's another fine mess you've gotten us into."

We didn't go into Iraq because some legislators were smoking marijuana and temporarily took leave of their senses. (This action is reserved for the omnibus-spending bills, which no one ever knows what is in, but on marijuana it looks like a pork dinner.)

The goal in Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein and his administration from power. The reason was because he was after weapons of mass destruction and might ally with Al Qaida terrorists. Past behavior being a very good predictor of future behavior, Saddam essentially hung himself. He terrorized Iran with a long and useless war, terrorized Kuwait with a senseless invasion, destroyed oil wells causing a cataclysmic environmental disaster, and slaughtered his own people by ones and twos... and entire communities with poison gasses (weapons of mass destruction). He tried to develop a nuclear capability, and thumbed his nose at the entire world for over a decade.

Removing Saddam Hussein to relieve the world of tyranny and terror, was a worthwhile goal. But what would replace the regime? Another one just like it, or even worse? It was also a very legitimate goal to stabilize the Iraqi nation with a legitimate, effective, non-tyrannical government. But then the goal morphed into rebuilding and security - a little more dubious goal.

Certainly people can't re-establish a government without security. And a major part of the security problem is the joblessness, poverty, and lack of basic services. But somewhere in here was lost the idea of the Iraqis stepping up and being responsible. Big business often got the contracts. For the Iraqis, rebuilding became something to watch... and sabotage in their free time. The unions would have been proud. The onus really should have been on the Iraqis, not big businesses and huge militaries, to provide security and rebuild.

In the vacuum left by too few US forces to provide security, militias developed. These mostly had quasi-religious orientations, meaning that they were largely ethnic groups with a political agenda: mainly oil wealth and control. Al Qaida stirred the hate and violence pot, but people knew this. The major problem in Iraq was not the goals. It was mismanagement that put the responsibility on the wrong people and allowed the goals to grow too big.

The people in the US can't and won't support continued US involvement. This was stated plainly in the last election. Coddling the Iraqi government and being overprotective just doesn't make any sense. The longer the US and Western world continue in this role in Iraq, the longer we encourage chaos, sectarian violence, and the killing of Western soldiers.

The failure of diplomacy - the failure to do diplomacy

Bush has a counter-productive policy of isolating Iraq's neighbors. Syria and Iraq are both acting as if isolated from the world. They both act as if they are unaware of the norms of international behavior. Iran's behavior becomes more and more erratic and bizarre. The recent (early April, 2007) hostage crisis is reminiscent of the hostage crisis with Americans held captive at the US Embassy in Iran during the Revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Ethnic and religious cleansing followed in Khomeini's wake, with the institution and rule of extreme religious fundamentalism.

Iran is a very complicated place. While it is somewhat democratic, the religious Imams control who can be elected to government. The Revolutionary Guard is a somewhat independent military organization, in thought and action, and has the power to repress people and carry out military activities like the seizing of British Marines on the ocean. Control in Iran is an illusion. Control is up for grabs between the people, government, Imams, and the military.

The younger generation in Iran does not favor the repressive Imams, government, and military. They are more Western leaning in preferences. This creates an enormous strain on the Imams, government, and military, none of which are especially tolerant. The Imams struck back in the last Iranian election by preventing many moderates from being eligible for political office.

Add Bush to the Iranian equation, plus the strain of Iran wanting to be a major player in the region, plus the long and destabilizing feud between the Zionists and the Arab Palestinians, plus the flush of oil money into the area, and the effects of the war that Saddam Hussein launched on the Iranians, and the tendency of leaders like Hussein to develop nuclear weapons to settle their wars...

But that isn't the half of it. Iran is a nation struggling with rapid cultural and religious change. Such change is difficult - rapid change tears at the fabric of society, leaving people without roots. People no longer know who they are, or recognize the world they live in. Religious and political norms are dissolved. Customs and traditions evaporate. Their identity evaporates. Afloat in a sea of change, they have no point of reference, and reach desperately for security and stability.

Desperate people look for security in traditional values and black-and-white religious fundamentalism. The power to control their world is glorified - military, nuclear, rigid enforcement and intolerance, and isolation from anything that can be blamed, such as Western culture and values. For example, a culture accustomed to seeing their women fully covered with cloth, even with a veil, with a taboo of men not talking to women, can't accept a beach full of bikini clad women mixing freely with men, which is common in the Western world. What is harmless behavior in a Western beach is an invitation to abuse in Persia. For the Western world, it would be like full nudity suddenly becoming an option in the workplace. It could not be accepted. It is too big a gap to bridge in a few years.

The more radical elements spin off into hate and violence in attempts to stop the unwelcome changes. And of course, Bush wants to isolate them even further rather than help them. An isolated group develops without the norms and influences of others - it becomes very radical. Usama bin Laden develops his Al Qaida terrorists in isolation from society. The terrorists who sponsor suicide bombers develop their "volunteers" in isolation from society. Isolation removes people from humanity. Isolation is the opposite from what is needed in Iran and Syria. Every step taken in isolation is likely to be another step in the wrong direction.

Ethnic differences are not tolerated during times of rapid political change. It is a problem for Serbia, for Darfur, for Afghanistan, and in Iraq is a problem between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. More gradual change is actually good. It gives people time to adjust, without inflaming their fears, and gives them time to accept each other in a non-threatening environment.

What is happening in the Middle East is not good. Persian and Arab states are polarizing and radicalizing. Intolerance is high. Christians are leaving in a steady stream from Palestine, Israel, Iraq, and other countries. Other ethnic groups are fleeing to refugee camps for fear of their lives.

As extremism becomes more prevalent, militia groups who protect one ethnic group or another, are becoming more widespread and gaining popular support. In Palestine, Hamas has long provided humanitarian aid, but has also provided terrorism as a way of striking back at the Israelis. Hezbollah is an extremist fundamentalist military group that is supported by elements within both Iran and Syria, and resides in those countries and Lebanon. It strikes Israel, while providing humanitarian aid to refugees in Lebanon.

Iran also has the Revolutionary Guard, which is somewhat independent, and there are other radical paramilitary groups in Iran as well. In Iraq, the religious leader, Muqtada al-Sadr has a strong paramilitary group that hates Western influences, and favors Shiite influences. Many of these groups are Shiite. The Taliban are a radical extremist political and military group that seized power in Afghanistan and returned the country to extreme radical fundamentalism.

The Arab and Persian worlds (Islam oriented) are having difficulty adjusting to the 20th. Century, and the world is now in the 21st. They are reacting to change, which to them is reflected in Western influences, and they want to control or destroy it. The problem is partly because of religion - but other religions are also having difficulty adjusting to change. Christianity, in many ways, is just beginning to make adjustments and Christianity in the African Continent is struggling even harder with change. Change is fracturing many Christian communities in the US and elsewhere, and there is a resurgence of fundamentalist influences. The pace of change is extraordinarily fast. But religion does eventually come to grips with cultural change.

The problem is partly political. Arab and Persian state leaders have typically been Kings, tribal oriented, or tyrant dictators. Many of these leaders are very good - people are not oppressed. Democracy is not an easy transition. While many may feel that all people want to be "free," many people in various parts of the world get comfortable with Communism, Autocracies, and even the loose government prevalent in Palestine after the Ottoman Empire. Leaders who want to seize political power, such as Usama bin Laden, simply appeal to people on a "religious" platform and radicalize them into terrorists who supposedly are working for God.

The real political thing that most nations of people are more likely to fight over is domination by a foreign government. People want to be who they are. They want their identity. This is more important than democracy. Every Arab state that has had foreign domination has fought against it: Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Turkey/Ottomans, Pakistan, Afghanistan (I'm sure a historian would point to more examples). These countries strongly resist foreign domination. (Is it any wonder that they resist Zionism and the US?)

There are two prevalent dangers in the greater Orient. One is the reaction to change. The second is the reaction to foreign domination. Both of these encourage the build up of militias (paramilitary forces) that are used to resist and quell all outside influences, create security, provide humanitarian support, and stop change. The worst danger is that these independent militias could unite, form an empire, and return the area to an extreme fundamentalist society with harsh repression of the people and prevent their entrance to the 20th. - 21st. Century.

The failure of vision

For the Western world to abandon Iraq would be totally irresponsible and a humanitarian disaster. No one wants that, or advocates that. Bush could cause this to happen by stubbornly refusing Congressional oversight and refusing to sign bills linked to military funding.

Bush continually shoves in the world's face the false dichotomy of win or lose. His single-minded insistence on a military solution prevents exploring other ways of finding a solution. He is as isolated in his thought process as he is making Iran and Syria, and he is getting more and more bizarre in his actions. Just as President Carter went down in flames due to his preoccupation with the Iranian hostage crisis, Bush has similarly defined his presidency as a fight against terrorism, and has let this blind him to all else. Iraq is not about terrorism unless we continue creating a hostile world in Iraq.

As long as the US is in Iraq, the easy path for the Iraqi people and government is to rely on the US and allies to do the work. Billions of dollars and troops in, limited or no progress and many bodies out (18 US soldiers this week). The "Troop Surge" has to help some to provide security, but beyond that, the Iraqis must have a deep and strong desire to solve their problems, and formulate an effective government and decisions. It is human nature that nothing much happens until the 11th. hour. At the deadline, people accept the pain and make the critical decisions.

What is not happening in US diplomacy is a deadline or consequences. For example, in Palestine we provide economic and humanitarian support to both the Israeli government and people, and to the Palestinian government and people. When they get close to an agreement, they refuse to settle the tough issues. We are going down the same road in Iraq. We stand by people forever, while they niggle over this and that and avoid confronting difficulties. They typically do this so that they can either manage to gain a better position, or avoid political cost (unified public support). So the US needs to hand many of these groups a button and a clock. When the clock runs out, either push the button and destroy everyone, or make a peaceful solution.

As paramilitary extremist groups become more radical, the chances become more likely that they will push the Armageddon button. We live in a world in which technology has outpaced the ability of the world to act rationally and peacefully. A few people can destroy us all. Peace needs to come sooner, not later.

We can't cover up the extremely difficult problems in the Middle East (Orient). They are immediate and intransigent. They are irrational and polarizing. They are isolating and radicalizing. Much of the enmity has just cause and foments into a spiral of reprisal and voilence. Yet we also know that cozying up to leaders (like the Shah of Iran) to support stability simply inflamed people to revolt and made them angry at the Western world. But unfortunately many in Congress and the Bush Administration equate contact and diplomacy with "negotiating."

Ping pong tournaments are not negotiations. Student and cultural exchanges are not negotiations. Helping people understand how to resolve conflict, and presenting them with forums to do so are not negotiations. Every step in the right direction is two steps away from the wrong direction. A "win" in this region is a stable region in which nations can determine their own path forward, work out their cultural and identity issues, know and use mechanisms for resolving conflict, and live without violence or threatening the larger world. This is a tall order in an area where border wars and tribal feuding have gone on for millennia. But there have also been long periods of peace and tolerance - it takes the right leadership. The magnitude of the problem tells us that quick answers and forcing solutions on them will make the problems worse. Isolation will make the problems worse. Finding ways to stand beside them and assist them in the right directions should help.

We are still going in the wrong direction. As a nation, we are doing things in Iraq that drive real war ever closer. We now have a better grasp of Bush's limited vision, after seeing how he handled the pre-war intelligence on Iraq and seeing his idea of diplomacy, so we now strongly suspect there was little chance he would avoid war. He stonewalls and isolates people, while continuing hard-line with his opinion, and is as unlikely to use effective diplomacy with Iraq, Iran, and Syria as he apparently failed to do with Saddam Hussein. He doesn't understand how to influence. He doesn't draw people into any sphere of influence. He doesn't listen to other country's voices, either ally or those in opposition. President Bush, the isolated star, has his one track agenda and another year and a half in which he can prevent the world from grappling realistically with issues such as the situation in Iraq. It is the 11th. hour. The Congress may have to alter the Bush course. He just doesn't get it. He claims he took the fashionable course and smoked other people's opinions, but we know he didn't inhale.

Evaluation: Since last year, we have continued to move backward. Recent statements by the Saudis indicate that the US and allies are losing support in Iraq. Iraq showed great support for Hezbollah militia actions against Israel, and Iraq has shown a much greater intolerance for US presence and even an alarming general willingness to kill US soldiers. Threatening rhetoric by the US against Iran, and irrational actions by Iran, indicate that Iran is not in rational control, and an uncontrolled military or militia action by them could lead to increased tensions and inevitable war in the region. Such actions are typical of isolated nations: for example the USSR shot down a US passenger plane during the waning years of the cold war when that nation began to fall apart internally. A war in that region would create polarization and more radicalized paramilitaries and terrorists, which would be a major setback for both the region and the world. Bush needs to understand what a "win" in this region actually is. Right now the Bush Administration is on a collision course with a disaster of its own making.

-1......0.._^...1......2.....3.....4.....5

-1 War is inevitable due to events driving toward war
0 Dangerously close to war, threatening rhetoric, military movement
1 Hostile activity
2 Trending in the wrong direction - unresolved conflict, lack of cooperation, negotiations, and communication.
3 Balanced. Could go either way.
4 OK - trending in good directions. Attempting to talk, negotiate, resolve conflicts, communicate positions and needs.
5 Successfully communicating, understanding, and resolving conflicts.

Next: The Economy (May/June 2007)

Update September 2007

General Petraeus has now testified before Congress about his evaluation of the situation in Iraq. Doubts have been raised by some about the impartiality of his testimony, about whether his evaluation truly matches what the polls have to say, and about his "stay the course" recommendation.

Impartiality: I think that Petraeus is his own person. To begin with, his opinion on how to operate the war is different than his predecessor, General Casey. Secondly, he has too much at stake with US and Iraqi lives in jeopardy to create a biased report that doesn't accurately reflect conditions. Second, he appears to have been burned by being an optimist, and isn't likely to do it again... not that optimism can't ever be a good thing.

That said, he is a man that has been given a mission. He is invested in that mission both intellectually to justify his own opinion, and as a commitment to a task worth doing, with a lot at stake if we lose. He understands that it is not an easy task, nor will it be accomplished quickly. So I think there probably could be some bias about our ability to win the war. How could his dedication be otherwise? But he did avoid giving an overly optimistic report.

Opinion polls vs. assessment: As I mentioned earlier in this article, the opinion polls in Iraq don't mean much. Tomorrow and thirty years from now I don't expect the Iraqi people to be grateful to the US. I don't expect little children to be grateful for doctor's visits. You take children to the doctor anyway. I do expect that under a democratic government, Iraq will be much less likely to attack its neighbors and cause major problems in the area and in the world. I do expect that the Iraqi citizens will live in much greater peace, prosperity, and satisfaction. I expect them to remain Arabic and Islamic. Hopefully they won't continue to think that it is OK to kill Westerners.

What is important is that the Iraqi people and government live in security. Only in security can they function. And eventually they will feel secure.

My assessment: The first thing that I see in the wake of Petraeus report is competence, which has been sadly lacking from Bush on down, in the first several years of fighting in Iraq. There is very close communication and coordination between David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the Iraqi government. Operationally the military phase of the fighting is successful... costly in lives, but successful. In Crocker's words, the tribal leaders now feel like we are "standing beside them." It gives them the courage to fight. The population is beginning to feel somewhat more secure.

With that competence is also the Ambassador and the Iraqis acting on the knowledge that this is not essentially a military battle - the war is not going to be won on the battlefield. But the military action is essential. But how long will we have to be there? There really is no doubt - until the Iraqis can do it themselves.

The second thing that I see is the slow transformation of the Iraqi Army into a force that can do the job of defending the country. Slow, but happening. The Iraqi government is beginning to work. The Iraqi provinces are beginning to function.

In general I see that the war in Iraq is now going in the right direction instead of the wrong direction.

The Iraqi government has been plagued with obstacle after obstacle in getting their government going. Finally there is some progress. In perspective, the US has been looking at getting access to health care for every American, like other civilized countries do, for at least 16 years. Currently there are 47 million Americans without medical insurance, which means that they have limited access to healthcare. There has been little agreement among US citizens, special interest groups have sabotaged every piece of proposed legislation, power groups in Congress make sure that nothing comes of any of it, no agreement of any kind happens among politicians, and there is no progress. While we dally, millions of people suffer needlessly and many die premature deaths for lack of adequate medical care. In comparison, what's a five year war with 4000 Americans dead and a few billion wasted?

The American loss of patience with the Iraqi government and people is working. It got Bush to finally try a different strategy, and military action is beginning to have an effect. It got the Iraqi government to realize that it has to stop bickering and start being effective. Some Sunni leaders are now wanting to be a part of the government (wishing they had joined in the earlier elections), and Sadr has cooled the military action of his army, probably realizing that they would soon be targets of US military action and destroyed. These are strong indications that for now, US military action and diplomatic efforts are working.

Iraq's government has been consulting with Syria, which it should. But interestingly it has also been using this as a fear campaign, saying that if you don't finance our war we will have to sleep with the Syrians and Iranians. Petraeous, Crocker, and the Iraqis all say that if we don't support the war, it will dissolve into chaos and the worst elements in the region will take over. But what is happening is the threat to withdraw troops is compelling people to act.

If we continue to support the war, we should not return to the Bush policy of "stay the course." We need to continuously evaluate what is going on, hold people and governments accountable, and continue with deadlines that compel progress. The American people are very unlikely to tolerate more inaction, and we don't have bottomless pockets. We can't afford the cost in lives, dollars, and the strain on our military while political and religious factions, and tribal leaders, maneuver for power positions. We should put the purse strings on 3 month approvals. No progress, declining money.

Al Qaida has lost the war in Iraq, and done so profoundly. It's ideology has been rejected by the Iraqi people who are terrorized by the experience of living in the 15th. Century under Al Qaida's religious maniacs. Al Qaida's methods have been soiled and damned by its insatiable appetite for the blood of innocent people. It sided with the Sunni insurgency instead of the Shiite with which it is more closely allied. It attacked mosques and innocent people. It has turned the people and tribal leaders against it. It has been exposed for what it is: the spiritually bankrupt quest to gain the political aspirations of Usama bin Laden.

What Al Qaida has the power to do, like most revolutionary movements, is use unrest and lies to foment hatred and turn people against each other. It has the power to inspire, recruit and destroy, but not to build anything better or even good. Iraq has learned this hard lesson.

Summary: There is no rosy picture in Iraq. War is every bit as ugly as it has always been. Freeing Iraq and making the area safer was a worthwhile and honorable mission that was badly mishandled by leaders. This seems to happen in every war. But the change in strategy does seem to be going in the right direction, and it is because the American people, and now Congress, are holding people and governments accountable. We owe this much to the troops, Americans, allies, and Iraqis, who are heroically accomplishing this mission, and making large sacrifices with family, living conditions, bodies, and lives. A salute to Petraeus, Crocker, and the troops.

- Scott

Other distribution restrictions: None

Return to main page

Page URL:  http://www.visualwriter.com/WhatKindWorld/StateOfTheOnionApr2007p1.htm