Roots of the problems in Iraq
by ZetaGecko | Add Your Comments | Issues/Problems, Politics
While I was at my father's house during the Christmas holiday, we had an interesting discussion of the problems in Iraq and throughout the middle east. The three main sources of information were my brother-in law (an air force intelligence officer who has spent time with military personnel from a variety of middle eastern countries), my sister commenting on a book titled "The Haj", by Leon Uris, which if I remember correctly, many in the military are required to read to help them understand how people there think, and my dad, who has visited Israel a number of times on business (he sold his company to an Israeli firm about a year ago). While I think my dad's point of view is sometimes a little skewed by the fact that he associates mainly with Israelis while he's there, my brother-in-law in particular provided a number of very interesting insights based on his first-hand experience.
Establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq is a much more difficult proposition than we in the U.S. would expect. We were led to believe that our forces would come in and liberate the people, who would rejoice in their new-found liberty and immediately establish an egalitarian democracy. The problem is that that isn't what they want. We have a difficult time understanding why they don't want that, because we don't understand some deep seated aspects of their culture.
One major issue is that they have even more of a scarcity mentality than we do. While we may believe that there's not enough to go around (or at least that a small group of rich people have taken control of most of our society's wealth), we tend to believe that with enough effort, we can achieve at least a middle class lifestyle, and that we can do so legally and morally. According to my brother-in-law, the mentality there is that there's not enough to go around, and essentially that you're justified in doing what's necessary to get what you need.
I remember hearing once some sociologist state that in regions where a large proportion of the available wealth comes from scarce natural resources, ... I forget what he said exactly, but it was something to the effect that you have an extraordinarily difficult time establishing any sort of equality between people. It makes sense--unless you're lucky enough to have a philanthropist get control of the resources, those in control are likely to be primarily motivated to solidify their control. Caring for the needs of everyone else tends to be a secondary concern. I get the impression that economic development beyond the expoitation of the natural resources isn't a high priority either, which intensifies the need to maintain control (since they wouldn't be prepared to make a living if they lost control).
This theory is bolstered by the fact that (according to my brother-in-law), the oil industry in the middle east is largely operated by westerners--the locals don't have the expertise necessary to do it. The concern of the locals appears to be more about maintaining control--not about education, for example. Westerners can be brought in to handle the operational details. I'll have more to say about education and the use of oil revenues below.
Getting back to the idea of doing what's neccessary to get your share, an important issue that we in the west don't generally understand is the arab's hierarchy of loyalties. Don't quote me on the details or order, but it generally goes something like this: one's family, one's clan, one's sect, one's community, one's country, all of Islam, all who are "of the Book" (including the Old Testament), and infidels. The conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis, which looks silly to us, stems from the fact that they're more interested in getting enough for their clans and their sects than for others in their country or other Muslims. And the scarcity mentality prevents them from thinking that there's enough for everyone.
From this comes the problem of police officers who only protect members of the groups closest to them, but who will stand by and watch while others are assaulted, etc. How can Iraq hope to have peace if they don't have a police force that will protect the entire community?
My brother-in-law spoke of Arab miltary personnel who thought nothing of lying to his face, and when caught, would make some weak excuse about not having very good English or things being lost in translation. As an American, he was too far outside their circle of interest for honesty with him to be a significant concern. Knowing my brother-in-law, I believe I can trust that he's giving us an accurate representation of his experience, not a twisted opinion skewed by prejudice.
I have a difficult time imagining stability and democracy in the middle east unless the general population benefits from the region's natural resources. I read an article today that mentioned that giving handouts in Iraq hasn't done much good, but that giving loans for business development and expecting them to be repaid has been successful. I believe that welfare programs that take over the responsibility from the individual are doomed to simply create people dependent on welfare programs. What I imagine would be the best way to use oil revenues would be to promote business development and education, and do it in a way that ensures that the money can get to the lowest levels of society rather than simply being funnelled into institutions where corruption would likely prevent it benefitting the general populace.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. What should happen is that we should stop supporting a program that's failing. The Iraqi government has taken sides in the currect sectarian violence. I believe that we need to tell the Iraqi government that if they don't take real steps toward providing equal justice for their people, we're going to leave. Otherwise we are complicit in what's happening there. If things improve, we need to continue our support.
We need to start serious planning for what will happen if we do pull out. We need to have serious discussions with Iraq's neighbors about what to do in that event. We need to let everyone know what we're committed to doing if some countries try to take advantage of that situation. We need to seek broad international support for whatever we're committed to doing.
Surely, many in the world will blame the U.S. for any and all problems that occur, but what difference does that make? They may hate and blame us, but will they stand by and let the conflict boil over when it seriously threatens their interests? I doubt it. We certainly need better diplomacy than we had the last time around. We need to listen to the rest of the world more, and be more willing to support the broader view even when it conflicts with what we think is best. Surely we can accomplish more by working on (what we think is) an inferior plan together than by working on (what we think is) the perfect plan alone.
On Wednesday, President Bush will deliver his new strategy for Iraq. I can't say I'm hopeful yet that it will be much of an improvement. We'll know soon.