Brian Howey wrote a column that was published in the June 24, 2006 News and Tribune that follows upon a previous column he had written and also discusses how the issue is playing in the 9th District.
I did not see the initial column, but apparently it drew the ire of Rose-Hulman chemistry professor, Dan Jelski.
“Sorry, but I think you’ve got the Iraq thing all wrong. From your column you’d think absolutely nothing had changed in Iraq at all. But you’re wrong, wrong, wrong.†He sees a prospering Baghdad exploding with satellite dishes instead of bombs.
Jelski suggests that Howey is proud of the insurgency or at least has great faith in its powers. Howey responds by citing a number of statistics that show things are not as rosy in Iraq as Jelski seems to think: Oil production is down, electricity production is stagnant and well below demand, unemployment is rampant. Doctors are leaving the country when they’re not being murdered, fewer kids are in school, 2,500 members of the U.S. military are dead, 30 to 40 people are kidnapped daily, 788 bombings have killed 6,800 people, and 100,000 familes have been displaced.
Jelski responds with what he doubtless thinks is the coup de grace:
Jelski observed: “The problems with the Brookings data is that you’d have to believe that life under Saddam was better than life in Iraq today. There is NO evidence to support that contention at all.â€
Howey says the demons have been traded. I am reminded of Hobbes Leviathan. Hobbes suggested that Man in the State of Nature — i.e. without government — would be the war of all against all and, in such a state, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, and short.”
The social compact was an agreement whereby individuals traded a world of innumerable predators of various stature for one super-predator, the King. If the King came after you, you were screwed, and it wasn’t fair, especially, but in return most of the people got overlooked by the King and lived lives free of the petty predators they would face absent a King.
What we’re seeing in Iraq, essentially, is the aftermath of the local super-predator, Saddam Hussein. So, the people face a world filled with lesser monsters instead of a world with just the one. Neither state is particularly “good,” but depending how beneath the notice of Saddam you were under his reign, I can see where life could be worse today than it was under Hussein.
But, you may say, “why should the poor people of Iraq face either situation. Shouldn’t we give them a democracy that keeps them free of monsters both big and small?” To which I respond, “How much does it cost? and What’s in it for us?” I’m relatively selfish about how our government spends its money and am not a big fan of expensive humanitarian missions. This one has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I think we could get more bang for our blood and treasure here at home than trying to make the world nice for Iraqis.
As for the 9th District, apparently Hill is trying to get to the right of Sodrel, apparently calling for an indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq:
“He doesn’t believe a politically set withdrawal date is good public policy,†said Mike O’Connor, a lead consultant to Democrat Baron Hill, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel. “We’re committed to a path in Iraq that we have to pursue until it is resolved. There would be consequences that would come out of our withdrawal from Iraq right now that would be negative in his eyes.â€
Meanwhile, last week we were treated to the spectacle of the do-nothing Republican Congress engaging in a bit of wankery by debating a non-binding resolution that gave members of Congress the opportunity to make tough noises about how resolute we were in remaining stuck in the Iraqi quagmire.
Days after that resolution, we learn that:
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
The question appears to be not whether we will withdraw troops in the next year or two, but how this can be done without Bush looking weak or the Republicans looking like they were pushed into doing something the Democrats wanted to do.
Meanwhile, Senator Lugar, is skeptical that the conditions are right for a draw down of troops.
“Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific,” he said on “Face the Nation.” “So getting to the plans either of General Casey or [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.”
This post has strayed a bit from its original focus. But now I’m left to ponder who to trust on the current state of Iraq: Senator Lugar or Professor Jelski.
I assume that when writing the last paragraph your tongue was in your cheek. I really like your analysis and think your use of Hobbes was appropriate. Either we get realistic about the Iraqi mess or we will get very, very disappointed in the results. Peopel like Professor Jelski will suffer great disappointment if the country falls into civil war. Words fail me when I contemplate the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. Your post here was an exception to the rule about Iraqi – it was rational.
Yup. Tongue in cheek. I respect Lugar’s judgment on foreign affairs. I think sometimes political considerations get in the way of him doing what he truly thinks best in such matters, particularly Iraq, but I respect his judgment.
“[P]olitical considerations get in the way of him doing what he (Lugar) truly thinks best . . “. No doubt that is true of Lugar’s public statements. But Sen. Lugar’s position, and his being of the same party as the President, really do limit what he can do openly.
I meant to come back here sooner, but work got in the way. I have seen Lugar on C-Span speaking and trying to be both honest and supportive of the Administration, and he usually has a very painful grimace on his face. I really do not mind that Lugar got a pass this Fall. I do not think that he will be running six years, so maybe we can all think of no opposition from the Democrats as atip of the hat to him. (As an aside, a very conservative friend of mine thought that I was dreaming some liberal pipe dream when I complained that Bush had had no plan for post-invasion Iraq. I laughed and said I got that from Lugar. Then I had to track down where Lugar had been critical of the Administration on this point. Lugar may be a Republican and for some of us Democrats that may disqualify him, but I think we Hoosier Democrats know that the man has some sense.)