Iraq the Model

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, the soon to be former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called Iraq "a model for a multisectarian, multi-ethnic society in the Arab world that shows that democracy can work."  Keep in mind, this is the Obama administration.

Mr. Gates's comments are especially remarkable because he was a member of President George W. Bush's 2006 Iraq Study Group, which recommended what amounted to a staged retreat instead of the troop surge that Mr. Bush eventually endorsed and that defeated the insurgency.

Comments

[NewYork1]

For whatever reason, there are Republicans who don't understand what happened to the Republican Party.

There are some liberal interventionists who stayed with the Democrat Party in the late 60s and early 70s after the McGovernites took control.

There are some liberal interventionists that decided to leave the Democrat Party and slowly infect the Republican Party. They fooled a lot people by claiming that because they were not McGovernites they must be "Conservatives." They're liberals.

They're the same people! The disagreements they have are pure political theater lacking in substance. Any Conservative who notes this is called a McGovernite for his troubles. And it's been going on for over a decade now.

[Tom Bowler]

I'm not sure I agree that the Republican party has become more liberal. I think it has become more libertarian, perhaps due in part to the Tea Party.

[NewYork1]

Possibly in some ways. But let me give you the Conservative analysis on Iraq:

It is ranked in the top ten of the world’s failed states.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/2010_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings

It is a state that is listed by Freedom House as not free.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Map_MENA.pdf

And it is categorized by the Economist Intelligence Unit as barely qualifying as a “hybrid regime” rather than an authoritarian state.

http://www.eiu.com/public/

In the overall EIU score for Iraq, it leads such models of free government Madagascar and Kuwait by just .06 and .12 respectively. Those two are in the authoritarian category.

The EIU rates the functioning of the Iraqi government at 0.79 on a scale of 10. Other countries on the list that boast similar “functioning of government” ratings are Liberia, Togo, Tajikistan, and Equatorial Guinea.

A better term for Iraq would be the Arab world’s most dysfunctional hybrid state.

George W. Obama will do whatever he considers politically expedient. That means maintaining the status quo in these places until after the 2012 elections.

[Tom Bowler]

Yes, but both the Foreign Policy article and the Freedom House map are a year old, and since then an election occurred and a government was formed. Admittedly it took a while, but the 2011 Freedom House map has Iraq the same as the USA -- "partly free."

I'm not so sure the analysis to which you refer is conservative. It's the liberal left that goes out of its way to write off Iraq as a failure. And when they can't do that they will claim it has no significance.

But I think that none of these "Arab Spring" revolutions would have occurred without the liberation of Iraq.

[NewYork1]

The Foreign Policy article is not year old. Although it is due to be updated soon. There is nothing to indicate Iraq will move out of the bottom 10 on that list.

The 2011 Freedom House map is the same as the 2010 Freedom House map with regard to Iraq. Iraq has not moved to partly free.

Here is the 2010 map:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Map_MENA.pdf

Here is the 2011 map:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/FIW2011_MENA_Map_1st%20draft.pdf

There is no question that the liberal left, the McGovernites, go out of their way to condemn military operations as failures. As least if there is a Republican in the White House. (No anti-war movement on the Libyan operation -- you will notice.)

But that has nothing to do with my analysis which is a Conservative analysis.

There is no basis in Conservative thought for using elections as evidence of a Republic. So the fact that Iraq has just had one doesn't mean anything. It's not the first one they've had. And places likes Iran have held elections for decades. All but the last considered "free and fair." Iran is not a Republic. Neither is Iraq.

[Bob Smith]

Iraq works as "a model for a multisectarian, multi-ethnic society" only so long as you ignore the pogroms and slaughter being carried out against its Chaldean Christian population by the majority Muslim population.

[Tom Bowler]

NY1, you're right about the draft 2011 map, but when I went to this Freedom House page and selected 2011 from the dropdown box Iraq came up color coded as partly free. Perhaps it's just too soon to make the 2011 judgment.

While Iraqis may not enjoy the same level of freedom that we do in America, there is a stark contrast between Iraq, and the likes of Iran, Libya, and Syria. Iraqis also took to the streets in protests as the people of Iran, Libya, and Syria. The outcome was vastly different. Iraqis were not shot down in the street as they would have been under Saddam Hussein, or as were the people of Iran, Libya, and Syria.

Government makes concessions

The Iraqi government has made concessions to the demonstrators – delaying the purchase of American F-16 fight jets in order to put more money into the rations system and announcing more government jobs. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in response to demonstrations in February promised a 100-day review of underperforming ministries but has since made clear that Iraqis should not expect services to improve in 100 days.

In my opinion, those who call Iraq a failed state are ignoring reality for the sake of their ideology.

[NewYork1]

I am not aware of ideological agendas on the part of Foreign Policy, Freedom House, or the Economic Intelligence Unit.

But if you do have information on hidden ideological agendas by any of these organizations, I would certainly be interested in that.

[Tom Bowler]

Published in June 2010, your Foreign Policy article is a year old. Let's not quibble over a couple of weeks. Interestingly, FP bills the article as "The sixth annual collaboration between Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace."

SourceWatch has an interesting take on The Fund for Peace. (The name might be something of tip off.)

"Founded in 1967 by Randolph Parker Compton, a well-heeled liberal Republican investment banker and one worlder, the fund's mission has been not so much to finance organizations, as its name might imply, but to provide support services like bookkeeping, tax-exempt status and fiduciary management for fledgling groups. The fund, which had a budget of $3 million in 1989, has made a notable contribution by assisting the start-up and subsequent administration of some important groups in the left-liberal cosmos. While associated with the Fund for Peace, these groups are known as fund projects:' They include the Center for Defense Information, a major research center with a programs control slant that is now independent of the fund; the Center for National Security Studies, which monitors U.S. intelligence agencies; and the National Security Archive, which collects and organizes government documents on national security and foreign policy." (Corn, 1990)

...

David Corn, "Public Interest Power Games: Turf Wars at the Fund for Peace", The Nation, Vol. 250, March 12, 1990. (My emphasis above)

Admittedly, David Corn's reference is an old one, and maybe the Fund for Peace has discovered a new affinity for conservative causes, but I'm inclined to be skeptical. At any rate, one might reasonably suspect an ideological agenda at the Fund for Peace.

[NewYork1]

Well I will certainly keep that in mind. But you only commented on one of the three sources and that is being generous since the Fund for Peace isn't actually Foreign Affairs.

I will continue to view the evidence as best I can with sources I feel I can trust.

I am open to change.

All due respect, you seem like the kind of person who made up his mind years ago. And isn't going to change it regardless of any sources provided.

I appreciate your articles on behalf of the Tea Party in any event.

[Tom Bowler]

My mind has been made up on some issues for quite some number of years. I am no spring chicken, after all. But I've made my choices based on the sources and facts as I see them, which have put me in a libertarian stance all these years. Basics don't change much.

With regard to this particular study, The Fund for Peace may be technically correct in their description of Iraq as a failed state. At least according to their own definitions.

But there's a history to the far left progressive view that won't tolerate any talk about Iraq as anything but a failure. Their decision on that came in around 2006 and hasn't changed since. Because of that I tend to take a very critical view of those kinds of assessments.

There is still strong incentive to discount the progress of the Iraqis for fear that Obama's efforts in other areas, such as Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria, will suffer by comparison. Besides Israel, Iraq is the only functioning democracy in the region. I suppose you could count Afghanistan, but Iraq is much further down the path to self sufficiency.

[NewYork1]

You say basics don't change much. I wonder if you would humor me. I'm going to give you a link to an article. It is not very long. I would like to know whether you support this article or are dumbfounded by it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/017wgfhc.asp

[Tom Bowler]

I would agree with the article.

[NewYork1]

Well I have to give you credit for honesty. You beg to differ with Ronald Reagan, you support big government, and you support liberal interventionism.

But I think you need to understand that when someone expresses opposition to those notions, it is odd for you to think of such a person as a Democrat.

[Tom Bowler]

My, my. Such broad generalities.