I wonder how so many of us got it so wrong. By ‘it’ I mean the invasion of Iraq.
My own mea culpas first:
• I believed, quite firmly, that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs. It seemed nonsensical to me that someone with all those resources – and he (his regime) did get rich on the oil for food programme, and all those big, bad enemies could do anything but develop (or buy) chemical weapons and the means to mate them to missiles and try to develop and mate nuclear weapons, too.
It seems I was quite wrong. Hussein either played a great game of bluff – convincing many (most?) intelligence services that he really did have such a programme or those intelligence service and Saddam Hussein were fooled by a bunch of Iraqi scientists and bureaucrats who pretended to be developing WMDs but who, really, lacked the skills and resources for the task.
• I believed that toppling Hussein would lead to some civil unrest but, at bottom, the Iraqis – and all peoples, regardless of race, colour, creed, etc – want the same sort of thing we do: peace, prosperity, democracy, rule of law, etc. The fairly sophisticated, secular Iraqi people would, therefore, elect a new government which would help spread democracy throughout the region.
I don’t think I was 100% wrong, but …
1. It is clear that sectarian divisions are far more powerful than I imagined. It may be true that the Sunni and Shia leaders are using (abusing) their followers - the ones doing the killing and dying – for their own ends but the fact is that millions of ordinary Iraqis are willing to kill and die for their beliefs. It’s hard, maybe impossible to have rational political discourse when irrational religious beliefs get in the way, and
2. Although I still believe it is true that all people are pretty much alike in wanting to decide, for themselves, how they shall organize their own societies and what form of government they shall institute amongst themselves, for themselves, I am coming to the conclusion that liberal democracy can only spring from liberal, liberally enlightened societies. Similarly I conclude that conservatively enlightened societies (East Asian societies, for example) will develop conservative democratic systems, such as we find in Singapore. It appears to me that Arab/Islamic societies will institute forms of government which conform to their own cultural norms – thus, in a free and fair election Egyptians will vote for the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, Algerians will vote for another wing of the same group, and so on.
• I believed that the White House/Pentagon policy making and planning apparatus was balanced between radical reformers like Paul Wolfowitz (a man I admire greatly for both his intellect and accomplishments) and much more conservative career civil servants.
It appears that I misunderstand the balancing which does exist in the US government. The civil service appears to be much more deferential to the wishes of the governing party than is the case in Westminster style democracies such as exist in Canada. It also appears that I misunderstood the nature of cabinet management of issues in the Bush administration and, therefore, I overestimated the influence of e.g. Colin Powell.
It appears, now, that Stephen Harper, Tony Blair and, probably, John Howard shared similar misapprehensions.
I am pretty certain that had Stephen Harper been PM of Canada in 2003 we (you, actually, I’m waaaay too old) would have been fighting in Iraq, today; had I been PM that would certainly have been the case. Even though I could not make a good, or even a so-so case for Iraq being a vital strategic issue for Canada I would have declared that solidarity with the USA is just that and, on that basis, I would have committed troops. I have a hunch that was at the centre of Blair and Howard’s reasoning – not 100% of it, but the main, central issue.
Having suggested that ‘we’ (Blair, Bush, Harper, Howard, etc) were wrong then the question is: what now?
I think Gen, Dannett is right: tell the Iraqis they are free and independent now; give ‘em a few billion dollars in cash and arms and withdraw. Get on with the war on barbarism which is being fought in Afghanistan, for the moment, and may spill over into Pakistan and then flare up, equally dangerously, in Indonesia and, even worse, in Malaysia and Thailand.
The Taliban and their diverse allies in Afghanistan* are the most important enemy right now. We must send a message to all Islamists (that word again – with my normal caveats about it) that they will not be allowed to subvert sovereign governments and turn them into landlords for enemy terrorist bases. Securing Afghanistan for the friendly and legitimate Karzai government is a key step. Once the government’s hold on the country is reasonably firm we should withdraw – Afghanistan for the Afghans.
Notwithstanding the noble aim of spreading liberal democracy to Arabia and the Middle East we must acknowledge that it is not our right, much less our duty to tell other people how to govern themselves. Let us content ourselves with giving people the peace and security which will allow them to decide, for themselves, what forms of government are best for them. We may not like the outcome; we should understand or learn how to deal with it.
We need to affirm, for ourselves, for all our citizens, regardless of race, colour, creed, etc, and for the world the great purposes of the modern, secular, capitalist, liberal, law abiding, democratic West. We need to propagandize, even proselytize for those great beliefs so that Canadians and Australians, Indians, Americans and Brits and so on will all understand why, sometimes, it is necessary to fight to defend those great purposes and beliefs.
We need to rebuild the Western Alliances to affirm some of those same great beliefs. We must make all democrats our friends and limit our support for tyrants. We need not, should not seek enemies but we need to be careful in selecting our friends because, once selected, they are entitled to our support – with blood and treasure.
The key alliance – the Anglosphere should be informal, unwritten and un-ratified but firm all the same. It should include America, Australia, Britain, Canada, India, New Zealand and Singapore, to start. Fiji, Jamaica and Malaysia should be cadet members. NATO and a Pacific equivalent need to be rebuilt as hemispheric military alliances – secured by American strength – willing and able do the United Nations’ bidding in their hemispheric areas of influence.
For Canada, specifically, we need to:
• Affirm our national values to the nation and the world;
• Affirm our position as a charter member of the Anglosphere – paradoxically that means increasing our (and especially Québec’s) position in the seriously funny and useless Francophonie;
• Affirm our position as a leading middle power; and
• Rebuild our armed forces and our foreign service so that we can put muscle, money and mouth in motion in the world community – to protect and promote our own interests.
---------
* I am convinced that there is more to the enemy in Afghanistan than just the Taliban and I am equally convinced that not all of the Taliban are armed revolutionaries.
