Juan Cole responds
My last entry, cross-posted at dKos and Booman Tribune, generated the following e-mail exchange between Juan Cole and my online buddy Mark:
I’d like to thank you again for responding to my (and others) request for your views concerning the possibility of the US pulling out of Iraq (my email of 5/22/2005 and the dailyKos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/21/23138/2935 ).
There are now comments at dailyKos and BMT concerning your comments today regarding third-world militaries shouldering the burden in Iraq (under UN auspices) in return for financial rewards. I think this is an interesting approach, however many seem to believe that you were seriously advocating this approach rather than simply mentioning the possibility (the latter is my take).
Which is it? I and many others rely on your expertise regarding the middle east and I don’t want to see your credibility damaged by internecine warfare, at which we on the left seem to be very accomplished.
Please let us know, either in your blog or as an email response, which I will post on the blogs mentioned above.
Many thanks for your hard work. You have my vote for Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs (or at least a fat consulting contract) in the next administration.
MarkInSanFran
Dear Mark:
I have been unable to convince many of my readers of what I know. A US withdrawal could well throw Iraq into civil war. Civil war in Iraq would bring in the Iranians, the Saudis and the Turks. The success of petroleum pipeline sabotage and refinery sabotage in Iraq will suggest it as a tactic to the guerrillas fighting in this Fourth Gulf War.
If Saudi and Iranian petroleum production is sabotaged, gas in this country will go to $20 a gallon and the US will be plunged into the Second Great Depression. The unemployment rate will skyrocket to some 25%. Not only will you and I likely end up unemployed, but the global South will be de-industrialized. Countries making progress like India and Pakistan will be thrown back 30 years.
We already saw petroleum spike to $40 a barrel in the early 80s, in 1980 dollars, which is probably $80 a barrel in our money. Cause? Iranian Revolution and Iran-Iraq War. Only a kind of MAD prevented Saddam and Khomeini from destroying each others’ oil fields; at that, they were sometimes attacked. Guerrillas do not give a rat’s ass about MAD. The oil shock in the 1970s virtually de-industrialized Turkey for a while, and very badly hurt the Caribbean (islands depend on boat transport even for basic foodstuffs). I have seen this kind of scenario. It is not inevitable but it is entirely plausible.
Since the US military seems incapable of winning the guerrilla war in Iraq either militarily or politically, someone else will have to do it if we are to avoid Gulf War III and its consequences. The Europeans cannot do it. They only have a surplus capacity of about 10,000 troops for deployment outside the continent, and they are already in Afghanistan. You could argue that they should reform their militaries so that they did have more troops for external deployment, but that would take time we don’t have.
That leaves a United Nations command leading troops from the global South, with perhaps, one or two remaining US divisions. The Southerners are culturally better suited to negotiating an end to the Iraq hostilities anyway, and some of them have excellent militaries. Gulf War III and Very High Oil Prices would hurt them more than it would hurt the US and Europe, so they have every interest in intervening. Moreover, they will be richly rewarded with billions in future Iraq contracts, which they need more than Texas does.
Some are construing this proposal as me having the poor people in the global South suffer for Bush’s mistakes. But at $60 a barrel they are already suffering for Bush’s mistakes. Do you know how many factories will have to close over this, or will never open in the first place, in Pakistan and India? Factories are very sensitive to energy costs, which have tripled, and could go even higher. Iraq is adding $10 to $15 a barrel to the current price because of uncertainty and speculation, and the removal through sabotage of about 1.5 million barrels a day also contributes to the problem.
I am saying that the UN and the global South can solve the problem, that they have every incentive to solve the problem, and that they will be richly rewarded for solving the problem.
Moreover, this way of proceeding would deeply hurt the whole American nationalist war party. It would be a victory for cosmopolitan multi-lateralism. It would dampen down US militarism by creating an Iraq Complex. It would put two US divisions under a United Nations command, setting a precedent. It would strengthen the United Nations so that the US Right can’t just order around or ignore it the way the Bushes do their kitchen help. It is progressive in every way. And it is a perfect reply to the Right’s insistence that the US has to remain in control until ‘the job is done.’ No, it doesn’t. This is a job for the world.
In other words, it isn’t all about us, in the sense of US. It is about what would be good for the world.
Cheers Juan
While I find Cole’s response intriguing, thought-provoking, and well put, his insistence that what he calls ‘the global South’ has “every incentive to solve the problem” sits uneasily with yesterday’s cynical reference to “the cupidity of the world” and “how to play on it.”
The nature of the incentive - aside from the envisioned cash reward - is supposedly that either US persistence in Iraq, or its withdrawal without replacement, “could well throw Iraq into civil war [which] would bring in the Iranians, the Saudis and the Turks” and lead to a global petroleum crisis which would disproportionately harm the south. Yes, it certainly could. But so could the replacement of highy skilled and well-equipped forces with a motley of militarily inferior troops whose morale would soon deteriorate to below that of GI Joe, since they’d have an even harder time preserving the illusion of defending their own countries.
And though he is right that $60 a barrel is already a strain on third world economies, it seems to me that the political strain of sending their soldiers into a meat-grinder would be appreciably worse. Which is one reason why I can’t really see ‘the global South’ drum up the hundreds of thousands of blue helmets that are probably needed. It won’t, insofar as it knows where its interests lie.
Needless to say, Professor Cole is incomparably more knowledgeable than I on these thorny issues. And while I remain unconvinced, his proposal may merit more thought.
War in Iraq Over - We Win
Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight - wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.
Trackback by Mark in Mexico — June 22, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
That’s great. Have fun then.
Comment by Sirocco — June 22, 2005 @ 10:56 pm
Lucky Mark in Mexico. Living the good life south of the border while his brothers and sisters up north are sent do die - in increasing numbers - for a pack of lies. Recruitment is down, Mark - do the right thing.
I followed the link to his blog (never again, no more hits for him) - useless drivel, maybe the furthest from reality-based I have seen since accidentaly visiting LGF last fall.
Comment by ask — June 25, 2005 @ 1:37 am
Yeah, one might think someone gushing about ‘the sting of battle’ would sign off as ‘Mark in Iraq.’
Comment by Sirocco — June 25, 2005 @ 3:00 pm