The Ingrate Problem
It’s nice to see that Andy McCarthy is putting aside his crazy anti-Obama conspiracy theories and getting back down to his core competency of incredibly stupid commentary on national security policy. Thus, via Dave Noon, I give you this paragraph:
Thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds have been expended to provide Iraqis the opportunity to live freely. And this despite the facts that (a) the U.S. interest in Iraqi democracy remains tenuous (our interest was the elimination of Saddam’s terror-mongering, weapons-proliferating regime), and (b) Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf. Yet, to be blunt, the Iraqis remain ingrates. That stubborn fact complicates everything.
Because, of course, historically people have welcomed being invaded and occupied by a foreign power whose actions lead to years of chaos, a huge civilian death toll, and millions of displaced people.
54 Responses to “The Ingrate Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Sure, people don’t like to be invaded and occupied by other foreign powers, but it’s different for us because we’re the good guys.
I believe that last phrase is carved on the first milepost on the Road to Hell.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Is there no one available to scream at that child “BUT YOU WILL ADMIT THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!”? That’s all that such people need.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Via David Noon I headed over to AMac’s article at NR. I don’t know if it can be overstated enough the level of lameness that radiates from the layout/design of the NR website. I’m sure they set out to make their site as bland as possible, assuming this would reflect the lame ass worldview of their core readership. But forigve me for being presumptuous if i assume that my dumps are more enjoyable to look at than the NR website. They sure are anti-creative. On a side note, MAtt’s blog needs a facelift. On a side side note, this is me ignoring AMac’s absurd article.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“I say, I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few hundred thousand people were decided into their graves, decided into maimings, decided into torture, decided into refugee status, decided into poverty, decided into very hell on Earth. For that Bush will retire to a lifetime pension and Secret Service protection, fat speaking fees to like minded killers and torturers and the eternal admiration of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume. The United States produces some remarkable human beings.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Curse those “new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child”.
That quote from Kipling is also meant as a comment on your next post (Fighting the Last War). Sure, the exact same crisis doesn’t repeat itself. Still, it sure does help to learn a thing or two from history.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ah, but don’t you see: all these negative externalities are the work of the terrorists. Only the positive benefits of the invasion should be credited to us.
Displacement and civilian deaths? Terrorists.
Comparatively lower level of violence and ethnic cleansing? USA! USA!
God damn, I hate terrorists!
November 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Ungrateful swine. IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD YOU MOHOMMEDAN TROGLODYTES!
November 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Nobody said you can bring change without breaking a few million eggs.
But seriously, Matt, good for you in directing attention to the human costs of the war. I believe our political and media establishment has not yet been able to come to grips with the enormity of the humanitarian catastrophe that was unleashed in Iraq, and the gross imbalance between means and proposed ends. Whatever one thinks about the ultimate impact of Iraq on US interests, a frank look at the toll that was exacted on innocent Iraqis in order to pursue those interests would make it very hard to defend the war.
It is important that more attention begins to be paid to documenting, tallying up and publicizing the human costs. Since the ultimate impact on US interests will be hard to calculate and perennially debated by ideologues, a clear and mist-free focus on the human toll might be the only way for Iraq to endure as a deterrent lesson for future Americans.
I think more attention also needs to be paid to the argument that the war was a criminal endeavor, and that some very highly-placed people should be punished for it. If state leaders can carry out these barbarous escapades with impunity, future leaders - both here and abroad - will not be deterred.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Wow. Teh stoopid… it burns.
Next they’ll try to tell us that liberals are fascists and that ’spreading the wealth’ is not something Christ compelled…
November 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Mr. Kervick, in addition to human costs there are horrendous environmental costs. An issue that is almost totally absent from media scrutiny is the damage depleted uranium munitions have done to Iraq. Vast polluted areas are unmarked and unmapped, with millions of current and future Iraqis subject to crippling and deadly radioactive poisoning. Cancers, birth defects, sterility and countless other maladies have and will manifest themselves for generations to come. You can count on the U.S. to avoid liability for all this. We’re currently denying much of what we did even as independent U.N. agencies document the carnage and damage. Bush bears ultimate responsibilty for this. That he won’t hang for his crimes will be an eternal black mark in our nation’s history.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
What ibc said.
You can’t blame America for the political outcomes of a war launched for the purpose of producing political outcomes.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Steve Duncan,
Can you point me toward any sites or organizations that are documenting this damage?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
“Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf.”
By who? The Iraqis? Ahmad Chalabi speaks for all of them, I guess.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
From the administrataion. Andrew Natsios of USAID, for one.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
The above passage is curiously similar to this piece in the “Voelkischer Beobachter” from 1943:
“Hundreds of thousands of German lives and hundreds of millions in Reichmarks have been expended to provide Russians the opportunity to live freely. And this despite the facts that (a) the German interest in freeing Russians remains tenuous (our interest was the elimination of Stalin’s terror-mongering Communist regime), and (b) the German Volk were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that land and oil-rich Russia would compensate our sacrifices on its behalf. Yet, to be blunt, the Russians remain ingrates. That stubborn fact complicates everything.”
November 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
A few hundred thousand people were decided into their graves,
More like a million.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Matt: To some non-trivial extent, the chaos, death, and displacement were themselves the expression of the ungratefulness (if you want to avoid the notion of ingratefulness) of many Iraqis. I say that non-polemically (heck, I agree with you overall), just as an expression of what I thought was an obvious fact. Or do you believe, with the US government, that everything violent that’s happened in Iraq is the work of foreign instigators?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Trite but true: No good deed goes unpunished.
One last thought: Imagine the world grappling with a nuclear, terror sponsoring Iran and a Nuclear, chemical and terror sponsoring Iraq.
Another trite but truism: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
One last thought: Imagine the world grappling with a nuclear, terror sponsoring Iran and a Nuclear, chemical and terror sponsoring Iraq.
Even more terrifying: imagine if they had laser beams, and photon torpedoes, and invisibility shields, and fire-breathing dragons! It would be really cool, yes, but also terribly dangerous for us.
Plus, imagine the world grappling with a nuclear-armed American regime that goes around invading and occupying sovereign nations at the drop of a hat. Horrifying to contemplate. Thank god it could never happen…..
November 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
One last thought: Imagine the world grappling with a nuclear, terror sponsoring Iran and a Nuclear, chemical and terror sponsoring Iraq.
Imagine the world grappling with a nuclear, chemical, terror sponsoring Canada. Only slightly less likely than the hysterical scenario you depict given than Iraq had no nuclear or chemical weapons and did not sponsor terror. Surely a candidate for the 1% doctrine.
North to victory!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Shorter McCarthy.
After all, isn’t “ingrate” another way to say, “new-caught, sullen peoples…”?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Khaled beat me to it.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Classic “logic” from foutsc:
“Trite but true: No good deed goes unpunished.
One last thought: Imagine the world grappling with a nuclear, terror sponsoring Iran and a Nuclear, chemical and terror sponsoring Iraq.
Another trite but truism: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
So OUR fear allows us to murder hundreds of thousands so that THEY don’t have a chance of hurting us? Notice that our fear–whether factually based or not–is the justification.
Now any sane person who has read a history book could make a similiar calculation about America’s potential to attack another country in the future. Apply foutsc’s logic, a country that might fear us has the right to attack us.
And we wonder why our reputation is tanking?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
>>Because, of course, historically people have welcomed being invaded and occupied by a foreign power whose actions lead to years of chaos, a huge civilian death toll, and millions of displaced people.<<
First you must remember a little history about people who have been the subjects of war mongering, repressive governments that have brought about massive destruction upon their region and then their own country. All of the above was true of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.
And did we succeed in actually creating allies who share our purposes in the world by invading, occupying, a huge civilian death toll and millions of displaced people? No one would disagree that we did.
The bottom line in state-craft is that regrettably, certain governments MUST be stopped to avoid EVEN GREATER death, destruction and displaced people.
Every calculation in state-craft is just that, a calculation. You can cause more destruction by doing too little intervention in some cases. The most recognized example of this is World War II. There is no argument anywhere that appeasement (making peace treaties with Hitler)caused tens of millions of deaths (estimated total death toll military and civilian of all countries for WWII over 48 MILLION).
The Bush policy which framed the invasion of Iraq was that replacing one of the most threatening regimes in the ME with a durable democracy has the potential to turn the tide for the whole Arab world. If the new administration can muster the will to hold on to the gains that have been made (despite the anger at the costs in life and money that were incurred to get to this point) in Iraq, this policy still has the potential to set the ME and the world on a totally better track. What is your solution to Islamist extremism directed against the world–inspecting more container shipments?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
No one knows how to build a durable democracy in the Middle East, other than by exterminating the locals and replacing them with Iowans.
Judging from the personnel involved in 9-11, NONE of which came from real dictatorships like Iraq or Syria, we need more dictatorships in the Middle East.
Now, was Baathist Iraq likely to cause any real trouble in the forseeable future? No, because they were very weak.
The idea that lack of democracy caused 9-11 wasn’t true.
The idea that jihadism was an existential threat to the US was absurd. The idea that conquering a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 would somehow uproot terrorism was totally irrational. The idea that the shining example of Shi’ite Iraq (the most corrupt government on Earth) would be a democratic beacon to the Middle East - convincing Arabs that democracy was the wave of the future, when somehow the US, Switzerland, or for that Lebanon had had no such effect - also crazy.
The real threat to the US (right now) is crazy people within. If we wanted to, we could deal with that threat rather easily.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Are there really people still saying that Iraq was dangerous to us? Really? Is it Nostalgia Wednesday or something?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I think it’s safe to say by this point that conservatives are constitutionally incapable of drawing any historical parallels that don’t involve World War II. If every foreign leader is either Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, or Winston Churchill, endless war starts to make more sense.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The Bush policy which framed the invasion of Iraq was that replacing one of the most threatening regimes in the ME with a durable democracy has the potential to turn the tide for the whole Arab world.
This policy has been pursued in the Middle East and indeed around the world for close to a century. It never, ever works, and frequently leads to worse regimes and blowback to the regime changer.
The distinction on which your argument falters in the real world is that you cannot win the hearts and minds of a country you invade that has never invaded you. They will see you as a criminal occupier, and rightly so. The next time someone coldcocks you because they thought you might be a threat some day, come back and tell us just grateful you were for it.
The invasion of Iraq caused Iran to begin pursuing nuclear technology and to elect the most hard line government in a decade, which in turn threatened Sunni governments in the region. It gave a boost to Hamas, flooded surrounding countries with the largest refugee exodus in history leading to desperate poverty and crime, and tore apart Iraq by inflaming sectarian divisions.
Bring stability, it did not.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Trex - got any sources for those claims you’re making?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Lin B says: There is no argument anywhere that appeasement (making peace treaties with Hitler)caused tens of millions of deaths (estimated total death toll military and civilian of all countries for WWII over 48 MILLION).
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pyrean spring”
I am not a historian, but my understanding is that the appeasement issue is not as simplistic as Lin B suggests. If Britain/France had stood up to Hitler in 1935 over the Rhineland, the Germany military would have removed Hitler, but by 1938 Britain/France were so militarily inferior that they would have lost a war. Munich may have been an attempt to save face and buy time so that rearmament could take place on a more level playing field.
I think it would be good if Americans were prohibited from using Munich as an analogy for 10 years. Look for some other, probably more relevant historical analogies.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Even that may not work - look at the decidedly mixed track record of displacing the locals and replacing them with refugee Jews from around the world.
You might call what came out of that democracy, but it certainly wouldn’t have been durable without extensive outside support - and even then, it has fought several wars and more or less continuous terrorism as well as being the thorn that provokes the inflammation that is Islamic extremism.
So what makes you think Iowans would do better in the same situation?
November 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Tom, I’m not sure which claims you’re referring to and what kind of sourcing you’d asking. Following is a little more detailed historical overview of what I was referring to. You can easily google the history to get more background.
Iran:
In 1942 Allied forces invade Iran and force Reza Shah to step down as his policies are not considered favorable to the oil interests of the West, even though Iran has declared neutrality in the war. Cowtowing to the West causes Mossadegh to be elected Prime Minister in 1951, and his nationalism and nationalism of the oil companies once again are considered a threat to Western interests. The CIA implements an overthrow of Mossadegh — a democratically elected leader, by the way — and puts the Shah in power who rules as an autocrat, outlawing opposition parties, throwing dissidents in jail and torturing them. This eventually leads to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Syria: the Syrian parliament refuses to allow American oil companies to build a pipeline through their countries. The CIA engineers a coup in 1949 which results in the dictatorship of Colonel Zaim. This sets a precedent for further bloody coups to follow.
Iraq: the CIA tries to help the Baathists assassinate Qassim. Eventually they help bring the Baath party to power in 1968. When Saddam Hussein takes power he rules with an iron hand. The United States overlooks this because he is a willing proxy with which to fight Iran, and spend a few million lives in the process.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“NONE of which came from real dictatorships like Iraq or Syria, we need more dictatorships in the Middle East.”
I would like a definition for real dictatorship, and why that is important. Saudi Arabia, I guess, is not a real dictatorship, because it is a monarchy, but Syria has become something of a monarchy also, with Assad following Assad to the presidency. Saudi Arabia is actually more oppressive than Syria. Egypt - I guess they have elections, but the results are known in advance, and the security services are more than nasty.
It is funny how some Americans continue to think that their allies are all democrats and their enemies are all communists/dictators. I get hints a bit when senators, democratic and republican, refer to Al Qaeda as Shiites. Shia = Iran = evil Muslims but Sunni = Saudi Arabia and Pakistan = allies; thus Al Qaeda cannot equal Sunni, but must equal Shia.
A strange hold-over, I guess, of the cold war.
Nitangae
November 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I think it’s safe to say by this point that conservatives are constitutionally incapable of drawing any historical parallels that don’t involve World War II.
OK, fine.
Iraq is Russia. Afghanistan in North Africa.
Just one more push for Moscow, and all our problems will be solved.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
In the sense of being led by a vanguard ideological party with an effective secret police, along with very limited freedom for non-state organizations, Iraq and Syria were more like a standard dictatorship than anywhere else in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is hardly what one would call a free society, but there is a lot of room for non-state activity, in particular giving serious money to jihadists. Try that under Saddam and he would have had you killed.
Egypt is of course not free either, but there is far less official toleration of or sympathy with jihadism than there is in Saudi Arabia. I could be wrong, but it seems to that the Mubarak dynasty doesn’t oppress people with the same _zest_ you saw under Saddam. I can’t think of any massacres, but then again there haven’t been any large-scale Egyptian revolts to put down either.
As for people confusing Al-Qaeda with the Shi’ites, seems to me that’s mostly explained by ignorance. That won’t change.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
As for people confusing Al-Qaeda with the Shi’ites, seems to me that’s mostly explained by ignorance.
And due to lying on the part of the “attack Iran now” crowd.
January 11th, 2009 at 5:09 am
http://www.batteryfast.com/
http://www.batteryfast.co.uk/
March 12th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
wholesale jewelry,
handmade jewelry
March 14th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra