A chaotic, road-warrior culture in Iraq would be just fine, so far as I can see. In what respect would it not be fine? (Fine for **us**, I mean. It would of course be hard on the Iraqis, but that is not America's problem.) Because "chaos breeds terrorism"? What environment does NOT breed terrorism? The 9/11 hijackers were mainly products of Saudi Arabia, one of the least chaotic societies that ever existed. 1960s Belfast was not the least bit chaotic, but it produced a crop of terrorists that plague it to this day. Hamburg, Madrid, Paris, have all turned out plenty of terrorists. The Japanese "Red Brigades" were some of the most vicious terrorists of modern times. Is Japan "chaotic"?I respect Derb, and I see the strategic value in what he's saying here, but I can't support the sentiment because I don't think it's the right thing to do...we need to finish what we started because a stable Iraq that embraces freedom and democratic ideals would be a beacon in the Middle East. That alone is worth the undertaking of this effort. (And this one is for Peter K. - remember the First Rule of International Relations...) I also think it is in America's best interests to have a free and stable Iraq as soon a humanly possible.
Chaos is no enemy of ours. The five-year war in the Democratic Republic of Congo has claimed three million lives, and has sunk a vast region into unspeakable chaos. Where are the Congolese terrorists? What's that you say -- Afghanistan? The problem with Afghanistan was not that "chaos was breeding terror" but that we didn't bother to do anything about it when we should have done.
We are fighting a war on terror. The goal of that war, as surely everyone really knows, is to prevent atom bombs going off in US cities. Since no terrorist group by itself will be able to erect the infrastructure needed to make nuclear weapons, the real peril is not actually the terrorists -- who will always be with us, though of course we should kill them when we can -- but terrorist-friendly states with the kind of serious physical assets and political organization that will get them to nuke status. The solution is to go into those states, smash up their assets, and destroy their political organization -- which is what we did in Iraq. If this leaves "chaos" behind, I just don't see that as a problem. You can't make an atom bomb out of "chaos."
The management of barbarians is not that difficult. You keep them scattered and disorganized -- "chaotic," in fact! -- while watching their developments carefully to make sure no threat is building. The danger only comes when, absorbed in your own affairs, you take your eye off the ball and let bad things develop in the barbarian hinterland. The history of China illustrates this many times over.
If the barbarians were to switch to a civilized style of life--which has sometimes happened in history--hey, that's great! But it can't be depended upon, and is not essential to US national interests. And I really don't believe we know how to bring it about.
The question Derb is asking though is whether or not a free and stable Iraq is vital to the war on terror. While stable conditions in Iraq would certainly be best for Iraq and America, I'm not really sure it is required for the war on terror. Anyone have any thoughts?
