On the False Analogy Between Iraq and South Korea
Bush is now talking about a "South Korea" model for Iraq. He likely got this nonsense from John Gaddis at Yale, who I heard talking it last November at the Chicago Humanities Fair.
So what confuses me is the terms of the comparison. Who is playing the role of the Communists and of North Korea? Is it the Sunni Arabs of Iraq? But they are divided into Iraqi/Arab nationalists and Salafi Sunni revivalists. (The secular Arab nationalists are the vast majority according to recent polling). So they are not a united force. They are fighting with one another in al-Anbar. And, the Arab nationalists and the religious Sunnis cannot both play the role of the Communists. Some Arab nationalists are allied with the United States (Egypt, Tunisia, etc.) Others are not (Syria). Some religious Sunnis are allied with the US (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). Others are not. So where is the analogy to International Communism? Who is China and who is the Soviet Union? Is it Syria and Iran? But both are ruled by Shiites, not Sunnis!
But let us say that the Sunni Arabs are North Korea. Who is South Korea? Is it the Shiites of Iraq? But they are allied with Iran (isn't it playing the role of China?) And the vast majority of them don't want US troops in Iraq according to polls. There is zero chance that the Shiites of Iraq will put up with a long term presence of US bases in their areas of Iraq. The British base in Basra takes heavy fire all the time.
The only place in Iraq that looks at all like South Korea is maybe Kurdistan. But it is also allied with Iran behind the scenes, and it is in a troubling way giving asylum to Turkish-Kurdish terror groups that are infliction harm on the US's NATO ally, Turkey.
Even as we speak, in Iraq's north, Turkish military forces and now 20 tanks are massing on the Iraqi border, apparently poised for "hot pursuit" of Kurdish guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), who have safe harbor in Iraqi Kurdistan but go over to Turkey and blow things up. There is some danger that the US will be in the middle of all this, though it is allied with both the Kurds and the Turks. Last week US fighter jets based in Iraq made an unauthorized incursion into Turkish air space that the Turks are protesting.
Do we really want to be in the middle of that?
(But see the next, translated, item, below).
So, no, Iraq isn't like Korea in any obvious way, and in fact the analogy strikes me as frankly ridiculous.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari suspects that the Mahdi Army was behind the kidnapping of 5 Britons from the Ministry of Finance on Tuesday. British troops have been skirmishing with and capturing Mahdi Army forces in Basra, so this could be payback or an attempt to trade prisoners.
There were mortar attacks, bombings and firefights around Iraq on Wednesday. Ten died in a firefight in Khalis between Iraqi government troops and local Sunni Arab guerrillas (the city is under curfew after these heavy clashes). The US raided Sadr City looking, presumably, for those British security guards, and taking 5 men into custody.
23 bodies were found in Baghdad on Wednesday, according to McClatchy. Four uniformed policemen were kidnapped in Tikrit north of Baghdad.
Iran's foreign minister says that US-Iranian talks on security in Iraq may continue.
Iraq, Sudan, and Israel/Palestine are the most violent countries in the world, according to a new index.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/31/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
So, no, Iraq isn't like Korea in any obvious way, and in fact the analogy strikes me as frankly ridiculous.
Personnally, I was shocked when I read about Bush speach. Shocked because it is a frank admission that what the US wants in Iraq are huge permanent bases. That's the main analogy I see between Iraq and South Korea. It may be a wishfull thinking on the part of Bush and the neocons, a pipe dream and unachieveable goal, but it's a clear admission of why the US invaded Iraq. Of course, since the US isn't there at the invitation of the Iraqi, it's a clear breach of the UN charter and a war crime.
Occupation Paradigm
It never fails to amaze me (and who knows how many others) when the 'leadership' begins to use some older models in order to justify any continued American presence in some part of the World. The use of South Korea as the template for what is to happen in Iraq belies the purpose(s) of the American intervention in the Middle East and betrays an increasing amount of ignorance of World affairs. The only older model to be used in Iraq is the British one, the same one that failed so many years ago, both in Mesopotamia and Persia wherein the Angaloids sought to control the region after having lied to everyone concerned, trying to refashion that part of the World in their failing imperial design.
While Americans can be found guilty of not knowing or understanding the history of the Middle Eastern region in any depth, beyond a smattering of Desert Storm publicity, the same cannot be said about the Iraqis or the Iranis when it comes to having had to contend with the 'benevolent' 'West' and their intentions concerning the countries and their resources. Whether it's the Great War or Sykes-Picot or Kermit Roosevelt and Schwartzkopf, Sr or the Shah or any other person or policy, there has been a LOT of activity by the so-called powers in that part of the World, autensibly to thwart others from controlling the petroleum resources or shipments of same to the rest of the World.
South Korea was only a foothold on the Asian continent during the 'Cold War,' one that intended to counter the North Koreans and their Commie sponsors. As of the time I left (1986), the whole country was militarised, ready to go at it again at a moment's notice. (I was 7 minutes by MiG from the North.) Things might have changed due to the Olympics and other signs of progress but that might be hopeful and wishful thinking on my part. South Korea represents a success for the UN/U.S. in World affairs, the vacating of which might be seen as a sign of complacency or weakness given the Asian cultural perspective. Aside from its political position, it has very little in the way of natural resources, other than cheaper labour, various consumer goods, and service industries that are marketed to the 'West' and to the 'East' as the needs dictate. Americans have been marginally accepted for a number of reasons, mostly not liked for polluting the Korean culture through Americanisation of various segments of the country.
Koreans were held hostage by the Japanese for quite a number of years, have a Chinese cultural similarity (as seen in the newspapers), generally get along with one another, despite the vandalising by the 'peaceful' 'Christians' of Buddhist temples (and where have we seen something like that before?) and the class distinctions between the centres of power and the people, precipitating riots and demonstrations occasionally, focussed on the various ills, perceived and real, that afflict the country. And, then there are the nuclear issues that are somewhat different from the Middle East.*
South Korea is also a fifth of the land area of Iraq, surrounded by water on three sides with the border between it and the North the only land boundary. Given this, the population is double what Iraq's was, crammed into a much smaller space, requiring everyone to get along as one big happy national family. Iraq, on the other hand, is almost landlocked with adversaries on every side, with wide open arid spaces in every direction. What Iraqi industry there was is probably less if not nonexistent, depending largely upon many competing factions -- tribal, religious, class -- in order to survive, if not succeed. With the growing of opium now, the country might come to resemble Afghanistan more than any stable society found anywhere else in the World (another English legacy).
Making SouthWest Asian Iraq into something like an East Asian South Korea is fanciful but can only exist in the context of a military occupation, complete with associated Iraqi military and police components that would be almost omnipotent and a society unto themselves. The other elements of the society would have to be controllable to a large extent should the pattern is to be made to fit. The almost 30 thousand military personnel stationed in South Korea as a 'deterrent' is merely an advance force on hand should the hostilities reignite. Also, the armistice is between the UN/Americans and the Commies/North, with the South being held at bay by all of the American Dollars being contributed, either through aid, trade, or GI paydays. A peace agreement between the North and the South is yet to be crafted. Otherwise, without the continued UN/U.S. presence, there might not be such a 'peaceful' relationship between the Korean cousins. **
One wonders what other models might be used once the Korean one fizzles. Sun Myung Moon might be singing lullabies for the Buscists, much like Chalabi did with regard to Iraq. We might be thinking more in terms of the Philippines or Haiti or some other 'success' in the imperial mold, maybe even Cuba. Yet, on any of the islands, there was a strong European influence before the Americans became involved. South Korea accepted the UN/American help as the better of two evils, preferring the country that booted the Japanese out to another set of authoritarians as would have been the Commies, all of whom hated the Japanese as much if not more than the Americans did.
The Hispanicised islands have never seemed to really want the same kind of American presence, with the possible exception of the Philippines. This was only, again, to counter the Japanese and other invaders and, then, only to a certain degree. The islands have had their share of rebels for at least a hundred years. Even today, they have their issues with the Muslim regions and insurgencies.
Once the powers that be finally decide that Iraq is an unique entity with its own religion, culture, and history (or what's left of it), there might be a change in perceived perspective. Admitting the errors of the 'Western' pasts might be helpful in at least putting some balm on the open sore of imperial crusades and conquests, lies and mistruths, broken promises and failed policies. Trying to fit an Arab nation into a Western European or East Asian form is fruitless if not ridiculous and perilously so. The previous wars were to end aggression while this one is to initiate and perpetuate it. We must recall that Iraq was essentially at peace when it was invaded. Europe and Asia were in all-out wars when the Americans rode in with their cavalry to save the settlers, as it were. This time around might even come to resemble the Ghost Dancers who were such a threat to peace and stability.
* http://www.uic.com.au/nip81.htm
** http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html
what's the story with Gaddis? He is a decent historian, I suppose, but I read a speech he gave after visiting the white house in which he called Bush the first great grand strategist of the 21st century.
"Do we really want to be in the middle of that?"
That is the long-ignored question applicable to the entire Middle East. As Ron Paul correctly noted, our, often amatuerish meddling and unproductive policy toward Israel, have turned the ire of many in the ME against us. Most just angry and some violently so in the case of AQ. But, most would be happy to leave us alone if we left them alone.
Korea?! We're still there more than 50 years later. Is that what Bush means--a 50 year occupation? Not just inaccurate, but insane.
North & South Korean Model for Iraq is Ludicrous?
Prof. Cole, Ludicrosity abounds: It makes marginally more sense to see the Iranian-friendly Shi'ia as the North Koreans, and the Gulf of Hormuz as the Yalu River and the Persians as Red China. But then that would make Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri Bush's Sigman Rhee? You think we have our hands full now, watching our backs?
What's the next def con level beyond "Ludicrous"?
Professor:
I certainly agree that the Korea analogy is ridiculous, but note the progression from the prior, equally ridiculous analogies Bush use to make to WWII and the Cold War. Now, instead of comparing the Iraq conflict to America's greatest triumphs, against tyrannical superpowers, he is comparing it to a military stalemate. Is he not finally (if obliquely) admitting that we cannot win in Iraq?
Gordon Hunt
As lot of us have suspected that the U.S. has intentions to stay in Iraq as long as there is oil in the middle east. Now, this rational is being cooked by the intellectually dishonest people on the payroll of the right wing to justify it by arguments that are just as false as the offered pretext for invasion of Iraq. Yet, we continue to think ourselves as a good guy....another con job by the corporate media.
last night CNN ran a story on the Taliban being supplied arms by Iran. for more on the warmongering, see http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/30/iran.taliban/
Anonymous officials and analysts have cost more lives than we realize.
You'll want to make that Korea, not Vietnam.
I suppose what Bush may be thinking of is that South Korea had a great deal of Communist and other socialist and nationalist sentiment in the 1940s, in opposition to Syngman Rhee, America's boy. Chedju Island ruled itself under a system of pre-Bolshevik soviets in 1947, and with no objection from the local American military. The US brought over Rhee's paramilitaries in 1948, who in about 6 months slaughtered about 40,000 people and drove another 40,000 or so to Japan. Bill Clinton was asked in 1948 to apologize for this massacre in 1998 when he came there to play golf over their bones, but he refused.
Out of the Korean War, fear of the north made it easier for Rhee to consolidate his rule until his overthrow in 1960, and Communism never had a chance thereafter, while the Americans have made South Korea a pretty reliable ally so far.
I suppose that's what Bush has in mind for Iraq, somehow or other. South Korea is, of course, quite anti-American, resenting US behavior while finding the US useful to protect it from the north. Hence US policy is always to exacerbate tension between the two Koreas, and this, too, arouses resentment.
Much in Iraq is far less favorable to such plans than it was in South Korea, as you point out, and they are indeed delusional. But that's their thinking no doubt. A little tyranny and genocide like Chedju Island certainly doesn't bother these guys.
The South Korea analogy seems utterly ridiculous - unless BushCo decides they want to partition the country.
I did come across one encouraging article today - Gen. Odierno is talkling about a cease fire. Not a lot of details, but any negotiations, any cease fire has to be better than the present FUBAR within an enigma.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PFDJJG0&show_article=1
ref : “no... Iraq isn't like Korea in any obvious way, and in fact the analogy strikes me as frankly ridiculous.”
of course, you are correct: it does not take an esteemed professor ~ any student of history could reason this conclusion. But, let us examine the other side of The Question: "How is the American government = antiCom policy, mode d'emploi, circa ~1955 similar to the present American neoCon policy apparent circa ~2005?"
[e.g. The Cold] War is a Government Program : “So why aren’t people who claim to be suspicious of other government programs suspicious of war? I can see only two reasons, neither of them flattering: power lust or nationalistic zeal...
...Politicians start wars for political reasons. They may seek to control resources or a foreign population. Or they may want to secure existing interests that could be at risk without war. The military is a means to political ends, [thus]...
...War is useful in keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers. H.L. Mencken said it well: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
War is more dangerous than other government programs and not just for of the obvious reason — mass murder. Foreign affairs and war planning seem to justify secrecy, shutting the supposedly sovereign people out of the government’s scheming. Politicians would have a hard time justifying secrecy in domestic affairs. But it is routine in war-related matters....
...Most unappreciated of all is that war is the midwife of intrusive bureaucracy. James Madison understood this. “Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
On their own, people do not go to war, and without compulsion they would never pay for it — they have better things to do with their money. Herman Goering, Hitler’s second in command, understood this: “Of course the people don’t want war.... But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
Mencken knew this too: “Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between people, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them.””
-Sheldon Richman, senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation
So i say, Professor Cole: The President is not saying, "The IRAQ situation does, and our occupation should resemble, Korea;" Rather ~ his hideous Vision is: America is now and should endeavour to remain A State At War.
Quick correction: In the second para, surely "North Korea" rather than "North Vietnam"?
I think what Bush is saying is that in their fantasies he and Cheney would very much *like* Iraq to turn out like the South Korea of the, say, 1960s and 1970s. That is, ruled by a dictatorial military strongman; politically and economically subordinate to the US (and Japan maybe); and with a number of massive, strategically important US bases protecting US interests in the area and protecting power toward the big enemies (Russia/China). But of course fantasies are only fantasies.
Never try to overthink Bush's comments, you can be sure he doesn't!
What he means with the Korea analogy is we'll be there for 50+ years keeping the peace.
Bush likes to compare himself to Truman, and I think this position of his is reflective of that.
Now if only there was a peace to keep.
We are the North Koreans in the analogy. We invaded them. The key question is who will play the role of defender of Iraq?
With regard to Bush's expressed interest in (essentially) permanent bases in Iraq, it's worth recalling a speech given at UCLA in Feb. 2005 by Larry Diamond, who was a senior advisor to Paul Bremer, Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. This passage stands out:
“One of the things that is necessary to wind down the insurgency ... is for Iraqis, and particularly those Iraqis who are involved with or sympathizing with the insurgency, to become convinced that we really are going to leave. I urged the administration to declare when I left Iraq in April of 2004, that we have no permanent military designs on Iraq and we will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. This one statement would do an enormous amount to undermine the suspicion that we have permanent imperial intentions in Iraq. We aren't going to do that. And the reason we're not going to do that is because we are building permanent military bases in Iraq.”
So, rather than following this advice to the wind out of sails of the insurgency, Bush is going with permanent bases. He is sacrificing the lives of U.S. soldiers to establish military bases in Iraq.
Bush never disavowed permanent bases, despite many calls to do so from different quarters, including from John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign. It's clear permanent bases have been a goal of the invasion from the outset.
-Patrick Cummins
I see way more parallels between the US occupation of Iraq and the British occupation of India, than with the Koreas. The British faced much the same ethnic, religious and political divides in India that we face now in Iraq. Question now is who will be our "Lord Mountbatten" and step forward with a workable partition plan for Iraq?
There was a recent discussion over at Sic Semper Tyrannis (Patrick Lang) about how hard it is for Americans to learn Arabic, and how they aren't doing so in enough numbers, and with enough facility, to help the military cope.
I have to wonder - if we're going to stay in Iraq for fifty years, shouldn't the government be investing in some early childhood Arabic education?
I have a five-year old who is bright and very good with language. I am a legacy speaker of Arabic - the "difficult" letters are easy for me, I can follow a very simple joke, and I read at about a first grade level. (I also have a repertoire of children's rhymes and 70s pop songs that they would never teach at U. Michigan)
I was just visiting some second cousins here in California. Their children are legacy speakers, as I am. We were amidst a houseful of second and third generation Arab-American children, and not one of them is enrolled in an Arabic class because there isn't any. We are Christians, not Muslims, so there's no religious reason to study Arabic.
You'd think that if the Bushies could plan ahead a little (hah!) they'd be funding Arabic classes at the elementary level all over this country - wherever there's a population of Arab-Americans. However, Arabic is so stigmatized that I doubt the folks out there in McMansion-land would want their darlings to give up soccer, or Mandarin Chinese, or competitive gymnastics to study a language so vital to our security interests.
I am completely against our occupation of Iraq. However if you just take the Bush premise seriously for a moment, you have to admit that we are completely unprepared to occupy Iraq for the next fifty days, much less fifty years. How can we run a country if we cant' speak the language?
Dumb. Just dumb.
Post a Comment
<< Home