The Carnage in Iraq – Past, Present, and Future
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
DIGG THIS
The headline
of an August 22, 2007, article
in the New York Times reads, "Citing Vietnam, Bush Warns
of Carnage if U.S. Leaves Iraq." Readers with live brain cells must
be stunned by such a warning. What, exactly, does President Bush
imagine is happening every day in Iraq now? Does he envision scenes
of social tranquility and cooperative harmony amid the peaceful
palms of Mesopotamia? And what, one wonders, does he suppose was
going on earlier in Vietnam, as the U.S. forces extended their unwelcome
stay year after grisly year? At times, observing the president and
listening to his speeches, one simply doesn't know what to make
of him. Is he actually as detached from reality as he appears to
be? And do his handlers really believe that at this late date, the
American people will take seriously the rhetoric his speech writers
persist in putting into his mouth?
No one
knows precisely how many Iraqis have perished from violence since
the U.S. forces unleashed shock and awe on them in March 2003 as
a prelude to "liberating" them and shoving the blessings of "democracy"
down their throats. Estimates vary from several
scores of thousands to several
hundreds of thousands. In any event, the number of deaths is
enormous, especially in relation to the country's population of
approximately 25 million in recent years.
If we suppose,
for example, that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect
result of the present war, that number is equivalent to 1,200,000
deaths in the United States, whose population has been in the neighborhood
of 300 million in recent years. Does anyone doubt that Americans
would consider 1,200,000 war-related deaths in four and a half years
to constitute "carnage"? Whatever the name one gives it, the number
equals more than 400 times the number who died as a result of the
infamous 9/11 attacks, and plenty of Americans were outraged by
that relatively tiny number of fatalities. How might they have felt
if they had suffered as a result of invasion and occupation the
equivalent of the 9/11 death toll every fourth day since March 20,
2003? (The deadliest war in U.S. history, the War Between the States,
caused approximately 620,000
deaths, most of them of soldiers, in four years.)
Sad to
say, the Iraqi death toll may have been much greater than the one
assumed in the preceding illustrations, more than six times greater,
according to one respectable estimate.
In addition to this appalling mortality, the war has caused countless
wounds, injuries, illnesses, and an unspeakable amount of human
misery and heartbreak. The great majority of those who have died
or sustained injuries have been noncombatants, people who just happened
to be within the blast radius of bombs, rockets, and shells or in
the path one or more of the billions (yes, billions)
of bullets U.S. forces have fired and the lesser but still considerable
number the feuding Iraqi factions have fired. The descriptions and
accounts of parents whose children have been killed or terribly
wounded and children whose parents have been killed are agonizing
to read. Yet such events are utterly normal in Iraq today: they
occurred yesterday, they are occurring today, and they will occur
tomorrow.
So, to
return to George W. Bush, what does he suppose will happen if the
U.S. forces do not leave Iraq? Surely the answer must be:
carnage on a vast scale, carnage with no end in sight. Regardless
of how deeply the president may immerse himself in wishful thinking,
no other outcome may reasonably be expected.
Bush reminded
the listeners of his "carnage warning" speech at the Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City that when U.S. forces pulled
out of Vietnam, "the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions
of innocent citizens." So it was. Yet, once the U.S. forces had
done what they had done prior to 1973, what would have happened
had they remained in Vietnam and continued to carry on their war
business as usual? The only reasonable answer is: more of the same,
on a vast scale – carnage that would have continued as long as the
U.S. forces remained in the country.
In Iraq,
as in Vietnam earlier, we must expect that if the U.S. forces were
to leave, more carnage would occur. It is conceivable that the Iraqis
would devise a way to settle their differences without enormous
violence, but the odds now seem greatly against their doing so.
Ultimately, of course, they would find a way; no society can persist
forever in a state of civil war on the scale that now prevails in
Iraq. Yet many more people are almost certain to die and to suffer
wounds and the destruction of property before a peaceful resolution
is effected, and that resolution itself may be dreadful in other
regards. The United States, however, cannot prevent this distressing
outcome. Indeed, its invasion and occupation have created conditions
that make such an outcome virtually unavoidable. In short, the U.S.
adventure in Iraq cannot have a happy ending. Just because the president
unleashed the demons that are raging across Iraq does not mean that
he or anyone else can chain them now.
Unless
the U.S. forces leave, however, their containment will never really
get started, because aside from a small group of collaborators and
puppet officials, all Iraqis agree on the desirability of getting
U.S. and other foreign forces out of the country. When Great Britain
formed Iraq out of three Ottoman provinces after World War I and
governed it as a League of Nations mandate, the Iraqis resisted
the overlord's rule to a greater or lesser degree until the Brits
granted them independence (with Britain retaining military bases
and transit rights) in 1932, leaving behind a political situation
congenial only to dictatorship and repression. When the United States
leaves Iraq, the political situation will be even uglier, probably
for a very long time. No one has a magic sword to slay the dragons
of ethnic, tribal, religious, and ideological hatred and conflict
that suffuse Iraqi society or a magic potion to suppress the Iraqi
appetite for political violence. Moreover, at this point a great
many Iraqis have scores to settle with one another. For the neocon
ideologues to have imagined that the U.S. armed forces could waltz
into Iraq and establish a viable liberal democracy, initiating a
cascade of similar political transformations across the Middle East,
ranks among the greatest delusions of modern history.
It
is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the president's mind cannot
accommodate much logic or empirical evidence. And he has admitted,
as if an admission were necessary, that he does not "do nuance."
He and his speech writers will go to any lengths, however, to create
the impression that keeping U.S. forces in Iraq will be good for
the Iraqi people, not simply for Halliburton, Blackwater, Alliant
Techsystems (the military cartridge manufacturer), and the rest
of the military-industrial complex. Bush's term in office is not
scheduled to end until January 20, 2009, an interval that now feels
like an eternity, and despite everything that suggests the wisdom
and humanity of getting U.S. forces out of Iraq as soon as possible,
he appears hellbent on staying the homicidal
course without so much as even a rhetorical retreat from his self-righteous,
Manichean conception of the complex conflicts ravaging that wretched
land. And why should any humane person approve of staying this ill-fated
course? Because, the president declares, a U.S. departure might
result in carnage.
August
24, 2007
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. His most recent book is Neither
Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government.
He is also the author of Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy, Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society.
Copyright
© 2007 Robert Higgs
Robert
Higgs Archives
|