Thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds have been expended to provide Iraqis the opportunity to live freely. And this despite the facts that (a) the U.S. interest in Iraqi democracy remains tenuous (our interest was the elimination of Saddam's terror-mongering, weapons-proliferating regime), and (b) Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf. Yet, to be blunt, the Iraqis remain ingrates. That stubborn fact complicates everything.
Yglesias claps back:
Because, of course, historically people have welcomed being invaded and occupied by a foreign power whose actions lead to years of chaos, a huge civilian death toll, and millions of displaced people.
This idea that Iraq should thank us for unilaterally invading their country is fascinating. Who said the colonizing spirit was dead?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
A hundred years ago, Andrew McCarthy would have opined about the "white man's burden." Same rhetoric, different sales pitch.
The modern Republican party is a loathsome, loathsome creature.
Even if we had been welcomed as liberators, which we weren't, and which was entirely wishful thinking, but even if we had, the complete mockery we made of "nation-building" would have erased any goodwill out there. The looting, the violence, joblessness, power grid failures... only recently does it seem we have gotten somewhat of a clue, but only recently.
It was a losing proposition from the get-go, compounded infinitely by the incompetence of Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest.
McCarthy's arrogance in the face of the very well-documented history of this war just boggles the mind.
Brian beat me to it, "White Man's Burden" indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden
These people are not self aware.
"Ingrates." That's just disgusting. I wanted to write something more articulate, but...disgusting.
The only thing I can think to say is something once said to another McCarthy:
Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
Is it possible he misspoke and meant Canada? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This idea that Iraq should thank us for unilaterally invading their country is fascinating. Who said the colonizing spirit was dead?
Too true, TNC. I would laugh but it's only funny in a "funny-because-it's-so-sad" kind of way, so I feel like hitting something instead.
Republitards!
With the exception of US-sponsored shills, I don't recall any Iraqis promising to cover the costs of $billion HalliburtonExxonKBR "reconstruction" projects and Blackwater mercenaries with their oil profits.
Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf.
I remember this, though he has the timing wrong--it was the lead-up to the war. And it was neocons right here who said it: that the war would be not only economical but turn a profit, a win-win all around. So McCarthy doesn't question to the source--"Please do as I want, underwrite me, and you will get a bazillion dollars!!!" I want him in charge of distributing bailout money just long enough to extract my own $24 million.
Historically people have welcomed being invaded and occupied by a foreign power whose actions lead to years of chaos, a huge civilian death toll, and millions of displaced people.
They do if the power doing the invading is chock full of extremely nice people with good intentions, gosh darn it. We are a nice nation! And Iraq just doesn't appreciate how great our intentions were, distracted by the details of our implementation. It's unfair.
Deleted. You need help man. Your obsession with black people is disturbing.
McCarthy and Yglesias may have missed this news item over the summer: Iraq’s Interior Minister Thanks U.S. Troops for Liberating Iraq.
sigh.. why even debate these people anymore? They have no respect for the actual lives of actual people outside these borders, and precious little for many of us within them. The question "what the fuck would you do if you saw foreign tanks rolling down your own country's streets", i.e. an appeal to the Golden Rule, to that basic equality tenet of good things like human decency and incidentally Christianity, actualy strikes them as UNSERIOUS. It would be serious to discuss the removal of Saddam's regime as a crucial step towards long-term self-determination, but only if you include something NONE of these people ever mention - the six-figure death toll and all the horror, glimpsed as well as untold, unilaterally brought upon Iraqis in the most flippant of ways. Bah.
Juan,
actually, why stop there? I've never heard blacks thank whites for bringing them here in the first place! Sure, they had to undergo a little hardship, pay their passage so to speak, but now they get to be in America! Why, they'd still be going ooga-booga with bones in their noses if it wasn't for the Enterprising White Man, Prometheus of Modernity.
Are these idiots even worth reading anymore? They're not even attempting to discuss reality.
Like this Mark Hyman dipshit, for example, who wrote a circa-August love letter to Sarah Palin.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/19/why-they-hate-her
There are still some conservatives engaged in the reality-based world. They merit attention, argument, and even ridicule. This stuff isn't even funny anymore.
@DaveinHackensack - funny I don't recall Bu$hco hyping al-Bolani's visit and expression of thanks.
sv,
Actually I have heard several black people say they were grateful unhappy circumstances ended up with them being in America. It's not an excuse for slavery, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out that with every child we bring into the world we open up a new world of possibilities, we restore a little bit of innocence back to the world. The ancestors of slaves do have at least one positive thing to be grateful for about their terrible history.
This in no way excuses the actions of bad people. "Look I'm enslaving you now so your kids will have it better tomorrow." is not acceptable.
But strangely enough millions of people throughout history have voluntarily lined up to die, be maimed, tortured, raped, etc. so future generations would be better off. The actions of one are foggy enough in the here and now. When you look to generational consequences it's even more muddled.
I hardly ever see it mentioned that "Liberation" is fundamentally at odds with "Flypaper."
You're not liberating anyone if you're inviting foreign terrorist into the country to shoot up the streets.
I'm not obsessed with black people, T-N. That was just one example.
The broader point is that it's naive to expect people to thank you for freeing them from oppression, because people often resent that. Why? Because it reminds them of their own weakness, that they couldn't free themselves, and that shames them. Shame about weakness has been a powerful emotion, particularly in the Arab world.
That's why if you want someone to like you, you ask him to do you a favor, not the other way around. People resent it when you remind them of their own weakness or dependence.
Yes, yes, Iraqis should be grateful to us. I mean, 'cmon! So what if there are many, many dead and displaced as a result of our presence there? So what if we can't seem to stop accidentally bombing peoples weddings? So what if our reconstruction efforts have been a joke? We deserve respect and admiration for...um...well, at least we're negotiating the SOFA in good faith...oh...wait....
Steve,
The Iraqi cabinet approved the SOFA a couple of days ago. Negotiations are done. And if we hadn't invaded Iraq, there would still have been tens of thousands of Iraqis killed every year. The difference would have been that they would have been killed in Saddam's prisons and torture chambers and people like you wouldn't give a crap about it.
It's really getting past the point where anyone can with a straight face claim that most Iraqis would have been better off if we hadn't deposed the former regime.
Another example -- which coincidentally relates to black Americans, so T-N may delete this -- is the relationship between American blacks and Jews. No group of white folk did more to help blacks win their civil rights in the last century than Jews. Jews founded the NAACP, Jewish lawyers worked their asses off on civil rights cases, and Jews even got themselves lynched trying to register Southern blacks to vote. And yet, the most anti-Jew, anti-Israel (which, let's be honest, is pretty much the same thing) reps in Congress are blacks. Again, doing favors for people breeds resentment, not gratitude.
TNC & Juan,
How do the Kurds play into each of your analyses? They have greeted us as liberators.
Mr. Shrimp said,
Even if we had been welcomed as liberators, which we weren't....
The Paper of Record begs to differ,
Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops.
After three weeks battling their way north from Kuwait against Mr. Hussein's hard-core loyalists, Army and Marine Corps units moving into the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's five million people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted.
"How do the Kurds play into each of your analyses? They have greeted us as liberators."
Good point. Here's the difference: The Kurds aren't weak. Remember, we gave both the Kurds and the Shiites air cover when they revolted against Saddam after the Gulf War. The Kurds were able to hold onto their own territory in the north with the combination of their ground troops and our air cover, but the Shiites weren't. The Shiites have a reason to feel shamed, and the Kurds don't. Since the Kurds lack shame -- and played an active part in their own liberation -- they have the strength to be grateful. The Shiites don't.
@Brian - so why are we still in Iraq, 5 years and untold $billions and lives later?
Guests, like fish, start to stink after a couple of days. Thank you for getting rid of Saddam, now go home!
"Remember, we gave both the Kurds and the Shiites air cover when they revolted against Saddam after the Gulf War"
That doesn't count as "help" or a "favor?"
The way in which "help" is offered and given can lead to resentment; not "help" as such.
Tom,
People don't resent the help per se, they resent it when it reminds them of how weak and impotent they are (which is usually the case). The Kurds knew they weren't weak, because once we took Saddam's air force out of the picture, they could stand up to his army on the ground; the Shiites couldn't, and they represent 60% of the population. That's where their shame comes in.
Let me break it down more simply for you. You and your buds are on the street and some bully pulls a gun on you. No shame in backing down there, if you're unarmed. Now, if I pull my gun on him and make him drop his weapon -- and he still kicks you and your two friends' asses when none of you is armed -- that's shame. And that's the difference between the Shiites and Kurds. The Kurds could stand up to the bully and the Shiites got their asses kicked.
That's nonsense. The Shiites didn't have air cover, they bore the brunt of Saddam's force because of their proximity to his center of power. The no-fly zone did not cover the entire country.
@CParis - because of bad decisions by members of the Bush Admin (mostly). That's not the point. The whole "We weren't greeted as liberators" thing is a falsehood and is used as a talking point that, while utter bunk, is seldom challenged. I'm not saying that this is an argument in favor of the invasion, just that the claims of people who peddle this false notion should be treated with some skepticism.
Check your facts, Tom. The no-fly zone didn't cover the whole country, but it covered a zone in the south (for the Shiites) and a zone in the north (for the Kurds). The Kurds were able to hold their own territory against Saddam with air cover and the Shiites weren't. Those are the facts.
You know, it just hit me. When we took out Saddam's government and then kind of hid in our bases, it was like when the really mean teacher was out sick and they called in a substitute who did nothing but show films, hide in the back, and go to the office a lot.
In other words, pandemonium.
Generally I agree with the unintended effects of doing favors. But, give.us.a.break! Juan we didnt go into Iraq to help Iraqis. The stated goal was to fight terrorism. Liberation was an insincere afterthought. BTW, its not a favor if I didnt ask for it.
TNC is right. Colonization is not dead. See Kinzers Overthrow for the history of the US colonizing brown people. The riches of Western Civilization in general have come from stealing the riches of non-whites-all of whom had better real estate than Europeans.
Juan-
You're right about SOFA, it is already signed and I should've put a were in there... what I was getting at was a quote from Mike Mullen, a senior US military officer who was basically speculating, before SOFA had been signed, that maybe we wouldn't, you know, honor the deadline.
Anyway, my point wasn't that "most Iraqis would have been better off if we hadn't deposed the former regime." My point was that considering things like Mullen's comment, or our incredible mismanagement of reconstruction contracts, or like I was saying, accidentally bombing weddings, it's not hard to understand why we're not getting the appreciation we might like. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just human.
I love reading this blog, so maybe this is silly, but do you need an editor? There are so many typos etc. on this blog.
You know I've often sat through classes in postcolonialism and felt as though I were trying to understand my parents' generation because the entire colonial period seems so far away and alien to me. And this is in spite of growing up sitting through history classes that were full of examples of just how terrible colonialism was and personally knowing people who fought against it.
And then I read people like McCarthy... White Man's Burden indeed. This brownie would like to say "fudge!"
PS - Janet's on to something. A readover once in a while never hurt a post. :)