Iraq war as performance art

Why are we in Iraq? Promoting democracy? Preventing civil war?

No, according to Stanley Kurtz of the NRO, we're in Iraq to show Iran we're serious:

My point (a variant of your own) is that Iraq does have a deterrent effect as long as the American public sees the venture as worthwhile. I agree that the key is for America to perceive Iraq as a success. My point is that the quick democratization standard was mistaken. We created a false standard for success, and that is our problem. Once we focus on the big picture, and off of the false standard of quick democratization, the public will see Iraq in a new way. It will take a debate about Iran to make that change, and it won't be easy, but that is what's needed. We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what's important and what success means.

Kurtz's words form grammatical English sentences, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

Let's review: We invaded Iraq, a country with no nuclear program. We thereby gave Iran, the country with the active nuclear program, even more evidence that we intend to overthrow Arab governments we don't like. We also tied down our military in Iraq, and Iran knows that.

Explain to me again how occupying Iraq is deterring Iran.

Here's the momst charitable interpretation of Kurtz that I can come up with: If the Americans approved of the Iraq debacle, it would be definitive proof of collective insanity. Even Iran might hesitate to provoke such an obviously unhinged opponent.

Comments

[Tom Hilton]

Kurtz's words form grammatical English sentences, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

That could be applied to just about everything anyone has said to justify the war on Iraq (or, for that matter, the more excessive aspects of the War on Terra). Lots of phrases that sound good, but don't mean a damn thing.

[Uncle Kvetch]

The shibboleth of the hard-nosed "realist" school of foreign policy used to be "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Bush and his enablers took this to a whole 'nother level: "If you want peace, wage war."

Kurtz is merely taking the Bush Doctrine to its logical conclusion: "Permanent war is the only way we can achieve permanent peace."

[quisp]

What I hear in his gibberish is an excuse. The excuse is, "if we fail in Iran, it's because the American public didn't like what we did in Iraq enough." (i.e. Iran won't be afraid of us because it knows the American public is not pro-war or whatever).

[DW]

Well, if you look at long lasting dictators, you will see that none of them use violence systematically as an evil sort of “rule of law”. They are unable and unwilling to use their resources that way. Instead, they all end up with a strategy that relies on a considerable amount of random violence. People know that even if they tow the line, the system still might come down on them and there is no hope if it does. Thus all live in terror. So maybe there is something in your interpretation about the US projecting an image of an unhinged behemoth. And may all live in fear.

[Paul W.]

Don't you dare call this a new rationale. There were many reasons given for regime change in Iraq, and I'm sure this one was mentioned by someone sometime.

[togolosh]

I think this is not even really much of an extension of neocon thought. Victor Davis "Peloponnesian war" Hanson has argued for a long time that the US should beat the living tar out of some small country just to let everyone else know we mean business. Neocons don't think of others as individuals - killing some people just to make a point isn't abominable to them because they simply don't think of the people outside their group as people - they are materials to be worked upon, the way a sculptor works marble. Only the Straussian inner circle really count for anything.

[Stephen Benson]

i've been telling folks for a long time that the iranians would be stupid not to go nuke as fast as they can. you can do some quick figuring along the lines of, hmmmmmm, kim jong il, crazy nutcase, has nukes, isn't invaded, keeps his job. musharrif, jerk, power grabbing klepto, has a nuke, isn't invaded, keeps his job. saddam, no nukes, no WMD, he's in jail. what should i do? think, think, think.

[Ted Powell]

"People know that even if they tow the line, the system still might..."
The line in question is one drawn on the ground, where people are supposed to line up, with their toes touching the line, but never over it. Even when the expression is used in the figurative sense of not stepping over the line of acceptable behaviour, it's still toes.
More here.

[carla]

What the hell are we planning to deter Iran from, exactly? Is allowing people to turn on a lightbulb and plug in their fridge a crime now?

I feel like I've stepped into the goddamn Twilight Zone.

[Artin]

Iran is not an Arab country. It never has been, nor will it be -- Iranians are a distinct people with a 2,500 year old history and they are proud of it. It would be like saying Mexicans are Anglo - the two countries just happen to be nearby eachother.

Other than that I agree, it makes no sense. Iran now has close links with the groups running the Iraqi Government -- esp. the Iranian-created Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. So by invading Iraq and giving Iran a huge hand in the new government, we've deterred ourselves. From ever invading a country like that again!

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

And yet when others murder people to "show their resolve" and influence third parties, they get called "terrorists".

The shibboleth of the hard-nosed "realist" school of foreign policy used to be "If you want peace, prepare for war."

An analogy: "If you want financial security later, save now."

Bush and his enablers took this to a whole 'nother level: "If you want peace, wage war."

Extending that analogy: "If you want financial security later, burn through your savings now."

Kurtz is merely taking the Bush Doctrine to its logical conclusion: "Permanent war is the only way we can achieve permanent peace."

And to top it off: "If we spend ourselves into massive debt, we will be financially secure forever."

[gordo]

carla--

The Bush Administration has been using a PNAC document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" as a foreign policy blueprint. What are we trying to deter?

Adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate. (p 4)

America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. (p 54)

We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership. (p 75)

We're trying to deter the Iranians from becoming capable of defending themselves.

[gordo]

Lindsay--

In a way, Kurtz is right. The Bush administration shouldn't have made democracy the standard of success. If they had instead had told us "We're going to kill thousands of Iraqis, destroy their infrastructure, and set off a civil war," then they would be able to declare their Iraqi adventure a resounding triumph.

[Julian Elson]

Kurtz isn't really saying anything. He's just spewing classical, textbook, Harry Frankfurtian bullshit. It isn't worth trying to understand his argument. It isn't an argument: it's a bunch of words designed to make people feel positive about the Iraq War and such.

[Alon Levy]

I think Kurtz is just preparing the ground for a stab-in-the-back myth. Nationalists seldom acknowledge that they were defeated in open battle; instead, they prefer to blame the liberals for stabbing the army in the back. You won't catch an American nationalist admitting that the US lost Vietnam fair and square, even though the loss was less due to the military than due to well-meaning but clueless liberals' attempts at nation building. Likewise, in 15 years you won't catch any American nationalist admitting that the US lost Iraq because of anything but the liberals.

Incidentally, this phenomenon is not limited to nationalists; other ideologues do it, too, but not necessarily in the same circumstances. For example, communists will never admit that communist regimes cause mass starvation; they'll always blame poor crops, which mysteriously seem to come whenever a communist state collectivizes agriculture. Similarly, you'll never get a libertarian to admit that a privatization scheme has failed because of a market failure - he will always blame some semi-relevant government regulation.

[Dunc]

It's perfectly simple to see what that means. There's even a classic quote about it somewhere, but I'm having tracking it down... Anyway, the gist is that every few years the US has to kick the shit out of a some other country just to prove that you shouldn't mess with the USA. It's a demonstration beating.

This is entirely of a piece with the sentiment that you can't withdraw from a conflict without "losing credibility". The key in all cases is to maintain the impression (abroad anyway) that the USA will kick the shit out of any country they like, for any (or no) reason, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

[Ginger Yellow]

I think you've missed out a level of meta going on, Lindsay. My reading of Kurtz is that we're in Iraq to convince the American public we're serious about Iran.

[Karlsfini]

Alon Levy: "...even though the loss was less due to the military than due to well-meaning but clueless liberals' attempts at nation building."

I'm not sure if you're saying the American military wasn't defeated in Vietnam, or only that nationalists maintain it wasn't defeated.

Just to be sure, the Army's own study, On Strategy by Col. Harry Summers -- required reading at the Command and General Staff College -- found that the U.S. military did indeed lose the war in Vietnam.

It was Summers who pointed out to General Giap that he'd never defeated the U.S. in a pitched battle. Giap's famous reply was: "True. But irrelevent." No senior officer in the U.S. military doubts you can win every battle and still lose the war.

[Uncle Kvetch]

"So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the way)."

--Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg, 2002

[NoBuddy]

The article doesn't make sense to me. We overthrew Saddam, the Sunnis and Bathists, who were keeping the Shiites in line. Now, the Shiites are dominant in Iraq. So, now we want to take on the Shiites in Iran? I don't see how that will happen without inflaming the Shiites in Iraq. I think if anything, Iraq has emboldened Iran, as we are in stop loss to maintain troop levels. Ahmadinejad knows that we're bogged down in Iraq. If we weren't, I don't think he'd be shooting off his mouth the way he has been lately.

[Eli]

The left and right grow ever closer! This is almost identical to Noam Chomsky's account of the motivation for the war in Vietnam.

[Frank Wilhoit]

The Iraq adventure *is* performance art, but its audiences, and the referents of its allegories, are all domestic.

[JohnN]

I think you should understand that quotation as marketing language. It's about repositioning a product, developing a new brand identity. In other words, it was never intended to be about reality at all, just about how something is imaged and sold.

[Alon Levy]

I'm not sure if you're saying the American military wasn't defeated in Vietnam, or only that nationalists maintain it wasn't defeated.

Of course the US military was defeated. But its defeat was less due to a tactical failure - after all, it won every tactical battle - and more due to severe strategic problems, and a total failure to win hearts and minds. A lot of that failure stemmed from the fact that at the time, the liberal policy toward third-world countries was to impose things on them without consulting the locals, like hydro power and mechanized agriculture.

[Dunc]

Thanks Uncle Kvetch, that's exactly the quote I was thinking of.