The Iraq War and social progress

aelf

Ashen One
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
18,213
Location
Tir ná Lia
An education in occupation

...

Until the 1990s, Iraq had perhaps the best university system in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein's regime used oil revenues to underwrite free tuition for Iraqi university students -- churning out doctors, scientists, and engineers who joined the country's burgeoning middle class and anchored development. Although political dissent was strictly off-limits, Iraqi universities were professional, secular institutions that were open to the West, and spaces where male and female, Sunni and Shia mingled. Also the schools pushed hard to educate women PDF, who constituted 30 percent of Iraqi university faculties by 1991. (This is, incidentally, better than Princeton was doing as late as 2009.) With a reputation for excellence, Iraqi universities attracted many students from surrounding countries -- the same countries that are now sheltering the thousands of Iraqi professors who have fled US-occupied Iraq.

Iraqi universities began their decline in the 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War. As the international sanctions regime cut off journal subscriptions and equipment purchases, academic salaries fell precipitously, and 10,000 Iraqi professors left the country. Those faculty who remained were increasingly closed off from new developments in their fields.

In 2003, after the invasion, many Iraqi professors hoped that their university system would be revitalized under US occupation. They expected funding to buy new books, to replace equipment, and to repair the damage inflicted by the sanctions. And they hoped for new tolerance for open debate and inquiry.

In fact, the opposite happened.

It started during the chaos following the invasion. While American troops guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior but ignored cultural heritage sites, looters ransacked the universities. For example, the entire library collections at the University of Baghdad's College of Arts and at the University of Basra were destroyed. The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandresekara described the scene at Mustansiriya University in 2003: "By April 12, the campus of yellow-brick buildings and grassy courtyards was stripped of its books, computers, lab equipment and desks. Even electrical wiring was pulled from the walls. What was not stolen was set ablaze, sending dark smoke billowing over the capital that day."

At the same time, the United States stripped Iraq's universities of their leadership. In his first executive order PDF as the new head of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, Paul Bremer removed members of the Ba'ath Party from senior management positions at all public institutions. Since one had to join the Ba'ath Party -- whether one truly supported the party or not -- in order to get ahead in Hussein's Iraq, this order had the effect of removing most of Iraq's senior university administrators and professors overnight. In the words of journalist Christina Asquith, after this purge, "half of the intellectual leadership in academia was gone." Control over Iraq's universities now lay in the hands of Andrew Erdmann, a 36-year-old American, well-connected in Republican Party patronage networks, who was senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Education. Erdmann spoke no Arabic and had no experience in university administration.

In September 2003, Erdmann was succeeded by John Agresto, the former president of St. Johns College in New Mexico and a conservative opponent of multicultural education in the US culture wars of the 1980s. Agresto was picked to run the Iraqi university system because he was friends with Lynne Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. He too spoke no Arabic and, when the Post's Chandresekaran asked what he had read to prepare for his assignment, Iraq's new top educator said he decided to read no books at all about Iraq -- so he would have an "open mind."

Agresto estimated that it would cost $1.2 billion to rebuild Iraq's 22 major universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges... But Congress only appropriated $8 million -- less than 1 percent of what Agresto requested. In other words, Congress told Iraqi universities they were on their own.

...

By 2004, looted, impoverished, and stripped of their intellectual and administrative leadership, Iraqi universities nevertheless embodied one of the last spaces -- in a country increasingly engulfed by sectarian tensions -- where people of different creeds could gather together. However, the principled commitment of many in university communities to cosmopolitanism and interfaith tolerance made the universities themselves targets for sectarian extremists and fundamentalists. Armed militias threatened women who did not cover themselves and intimidated professors who said things they did not like. According to The Washington Times, 280 Iraqi professors were killed and another 3,250 fled the country by the end of 2006. Those assassinated included Muhammad al-Rawi, the president of Baghdad University; Isam al-Rawi, a geology professor who was compiling statistics on assassinated Iraqi academics when he himself was killed; and Amal Maamlaji, a Shia information-technology professor and women's rights advocate at a predominantly Sunni university, who was killed with 163 bullets.

...

In just 20 years, then, the Iraqi university system went from being among the best in the Middle East to one of the worst. This extraordinary act of institutional destruction was largely accomplished by American leaders who told us that the US invasion of Iraq would bring modernity, development, and women's rights. Instead, as political scientist Mark Duffield has observed, it has partly de-modernized that country. In the words of John Tirman, America's failure to acknowledge the suffering that occupation wreaked in Iraq "is a moral failing as well as a strategic blunder." Iraq represents a blind spot in our national conversation, one that impedes the cultural growth that stems from a painful recognition of error; and it hobbles the rational evaluation of foreign intervention. Is it too late to look in the mirror?

Link

So does anyone still believe in the myth that the Iraq War was fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people? They may have democracy now (sort of), but by almost every measure, the war has been a setback for Iraqi society.

And as education holds the key to the future of a country, I think this really encapsulates how the coalition really screwed Iraq over.
 
Germany and Japan were both in a similar state after WWII and both of those nations turned out just fine. Iraq is recovering from a war, and it will take at least a decade, probably more to build itself back up again.

Was the invasion justified? Most evidence points to no. However, do I think Iraq will be better off in the long run because of it? It depends. If their new government can somehow survive through these tough earlier years of reconstruction then they'll be just fine. Life certainly won't be easy for a long time, but they will be fine.
 
Germany and Japan were both in a similar state after WWII and both of those nations turned out just fine. Iraq is recovering from a war, and it will take at least a decade, probably more to build itself back up again.

Even if what you're saying is true (there are probably significant differences between the attitudes and goals behind the occupation of those countries and those behind the occupation of Iraq), were the circumstances surrounding WWII in any way similar to the those of the Iraq War? If not, how is this even a relevant point?
 
Were the circumstances surrounding WWII in any way similar to the those of the Iraq War? If not, how is this even a relevant point?

Circumstances don't matter. The point I was trying to make is that war is always a setback for any society, but that setback is always temporary. The suffering won't last forever and things will get better as long as progress continues during the reconstruction process.
 
I don't and never have. Although, I'm curious to hear you stance regarding Syria now before the benefit of hindsight.
 
I don't and never have. Although, I'm curious to hear you stance regarding Syria now before the benefit of hindsight.

I think intervention in Syria would be a horrible idea, just as I thought Iraq was a horrible idea in 2003. The Syrians need to decide for themselves what they want to do about their government and they need to make that decision with the knowledge that the world will not come to their aid.
 
I don't think a military intervention is at all likely at the moment. Whether the Syrians will be better or worse off after Assad is another matter. I'll leave it at this since there's another thread about the Syrian situation..
 
The premise of the OP is a little bit irrelevant now, considering the de-Baathification process has been stopped.

Germany and Japan were both in a similar state after WWII and both of those nations turned out just fine. Iraq is recovering from a war, and it will take at least a decade, probably more to build itself back up again.

Most German and Japanese university figures remained in their position after the end of WWII, sometimes even if they sincerely supported the NSDAP or IRAA respectively.
 
Circumstances don't matter. The point I was trying to make is that war is always a setback for any society, but that setback is always temporary. The suffering won't last forever and things will get better as long as progress continues during the reconstruction process.

Of course the circumstances matter. As you said yourself, the premise of the war is unjustifiable, so saying that the Iraqis would be fine because it's normal that things suck after a war destroys your country is simply offensive.

Besides, another point of the article is that the reconstruction effort has been laughable, something that the poster below seems to have missed as well.

The premise of the OP is a little bit irrelevant now, considering the de-Baathification process has been stopped.

Well, there's quite a bit more to the article than the de-Baathification process.
 
So does anyone still believe in the myth that the Iraq War was fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people? They may have democracy now (sort of), but by almost every measure, the war has been a setback for Iraqi society.
"Post hoc ergo promptor hoc" spoken with my Sheldon voice.

"After this, therefore because of this". Bullpuckies. Saddam Hussein set aside funding for schools--why can't the current Iraqi government do the same??
 
Oddly, I thought about BasketCase when I asked the question in the OP. But I wish he'd be a bit more explicit in his response instead of being intentionally vague
 
So does anyone still believe in the myth that the Iraq War was fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people?

Obviously Saddam Hussein didn't start this conflict in 1990 with the benefit of the Iraq people in mind. Who has ever said that he did?
 
Germany and Japan were both in a similar state after WWII and both of those nations turned out just fine. Iraq is recovering from a war, and it will take at least a decade, probably more to build itself back up again.

Was the invasion justified? Most evidence points to no. However, do I think Iraq will be better off in the long run because of it? It depends. If their new government can somehow survive through these tough earlier years of reconstruction then they'll be just fine. Life certainly won't be easy for a long time, but they will be fine.

Creative destruction hey? ...pity about Afghanistan or Cambodia or the Congo.
 
The argument that the war was justified in ending the abuse of Iraq's people typically ignores the fact that pre-war Iraq had already been devastated by thorough sanctions in great measure supported by America.

The most conservative estimate of deaths from the sanctions is roughly equal to the most conservative estimate of deaths during the war. Machinery and materials vital to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure couldn't be imported; vital drugs couldn't be imported; outbreaks of disease and malnutrition became rampant; a scarcity of clean drinking water resulted from a ban on chlorine which (gasp!) might have been retooled into chlorine gas and used as a chemical weapon. The result of the sanctions was the virtual demodernisation of a secular society and the strengthening of Saddam Hussein's hold on power, while the deliberate way in which it was pursued and the scale which the policy effected arguably qualifies it as genocide.

On the whole, deciding that the destructive war was worth it is bit like deciding that killing the person you just brutally raped is an act of mercy because it puts her out of her misery.
 
Oddly, I thought about BasketCase when I asked the question in the OP. But I wish he'd be a bit more explicit in his response instead of being intentionally vague
Nothing vague about it. Saddam Hussein set aside funding for schools--why can't the current Iraqi government do the same??

If you really think it's necessary to use pretentious Latin quotes, at least get them right. It's "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
Obvisly you figgered out what I was saynig even thuogh the spieling was wrong. So don't wory abou tit.
 
So was Saddam. Yes, including the sectarian part. Violence against Shiites was common during his rule.

mm... Saddam was also able to maintain control. Sectarian violence between populist movements wasn't an issue under him, and sectarian movements didn't infiltrate important positions in the civil service. He and his inner circle were certainly corrupt, but clamped down on corruption in the rest of society and were fairly effective at enforcing order. Now-a-days corruption is rampant at even the lowest levels. For example, it's now fairly commonplace for members of the police to capture an a member of Al-Qaeda and to set him/her free for a ransom.

Although Iraq is already showing signs of reverting back to a more autocratic rule.
 
Back
Top Bottom