Brahimi needs to recognize Iraqi realities

The limits of nuanced approaches

Published on April 27, 2004 By Draginol In International

In game development subtlety has to take a back seat to directness. This is particularly true in algorithms where many developers with dither around trying to tweak their algorithms to the nth degree while the more successful ones will come with more straight forward approaches that do the job.

That isn't to say directness is superior to subtlety. It's just that the successful developer knows when the situation calls for subtlety and when the situation calls for directness. The same is true in diplomacy. Diplomats tend to love to dither with nuanced approaches. Lakhdar Brahimi seems typical. He's the new special UN envoy to Iraq. In an interview, he said that there is never a situation where military force is preferable to diplomacy. Really?

I've often wondered just how knowledgeable on human history diplomats like Lakhdar Brahimi really are. In May 1941, Great Britain was faced with a nightmare scenario. Germany had overrun essentially all of Europe. France had signed an armistice and was effectively out of the war. Hitler was making peace soundings. Should Britain have accepted Hitler's offer? After all, peace is always preferable to war isn't it? At least according to Lakhdar Brahimi. There was no diplomatic scenario one could envision in which Hitler's gains could be turned back. France's official government was now on Germany's side at that point. The United States was still locked in isolationism. Luckily for the world, Britain was led by Churchill and not Lakhdar Brahimi. Churchill lacked the subtlety of a Brahimi. He saw things more "black and white". He recognize that there are bad people out there. And bad people do bad things for reasons that civilized people can't understand.

World War II wasn't some misunderstanding that could have been avoided. Hitler wanted to exterminate large swaths of the population and preferred to use military force to do so. The only way to defeat Nazi Germany was with military force -- not diplomacy.

Fast forward to today and based on the words of UN diplomats and the chattering classes in some parts of Europe and you would think we had reached the end of history. If only Israel was more reasonable. If only the Americans would negotiate harder with the insurgents in Iraq. If only Americans would understand "why they hate you". But that is all wishful thinking because ultimately, there are bad people out there that not only are willing to murder as many people as they can to achieve their objectives, but murder is their preferred mechanism for reaching those objectives.

There is a tendency by some to believe that it is only Americans and in particular the Bush administration that uses violence to achieve objectives. They believe that the opponents of the United States are simply misunderstood and left with no alternatives. What they don't realize is that these opponents come from a totally different way of thinking. To a secularist, killing is abhorrent because they believe deep down that death is the end of the line. But to the Islamo-fascists, death is merely another step in a long journey and hence do not fear killing or being killed as a secularist might. When dealing with people like Lakhdar Brahimi they have a huge advantange because they believe in the most direct of strategies possible -- violence. Whereas Lakhdar Brahimi has already forsworn using violence to achieve any of his objectives.

What people need to wake up to is that there are bad people out there. Lots of them. And if you think Bush or Cheney or whoever your American boogeyman is, they're angels compared to what we're facing over in the middle east. The terrorists would not think twice about exterminating every man, woman, and child in Europe and the United States had they the means. Luckily, they don't. Our job, is to make sure that they don't get the means. And one way of doing that is to to to have local allies devoted towards a peaceful, democratic culture that is more interested in improving the lives of their own people rather than snuffing out those they hate.

That is why people like Lakhdar Brahimi are not terribly helpful in Iraq right now. Hard work has to be done. Fallujah has to be taken and it will probably require the most direct of approaches to be taken -- violence. Lots of it. Brahimi needs to understand that we're in a part of the world that values strength over nuanced approaches. Courage over subtlety. Power over compassion.

History has shown, regrettably, over and over, that in order for diplomacy to work, both parties have to be committed to a diplomatic solution. The insurgents in Iraq are, generally, not interested in diplomacy.

Comments (Page 1)

greywar

on Apr 27, 2004

Like nearly anyone in a specialized job, diplomats always assert the necessity of themselves. By proxy they eleate their own personal importance over the *normals*. The U.N. as a whole has been a spectacular failure since it's inception. They have been paricualry inept at nation building and democratic election processes.

Sherye Hanson

on Apr 27, 2004

In a practical sense, Brahimi is wrong, but in a theoretical sense talking is always preferable to shooting. If you talk long enough and well enough then you can save your life. Of course we know that there are situations in which the enemy won't listen. I don't think that it is right to compare Iraq to World War II. The terrorists are frightening, but they do not match the power of the Nazis.

Draginol

on Apr 27, 2004

I agree. Ideally, people can work their problems out peacefully. But many people don't recognize that there are some people who actually like violence.

greywar

on Apr 27, 2004

While the terrorists are not anywhere near as powerful as the Nazis they are *much* less likely to respond to diplomacy than even the Nazis were. They have little in the way of a centralized authority and a lot in the way of personal power mongers who would never give it up willingly.

greywar

on Apr 27, 2004

hey fanfan - welcome to the blacklist:) I need never see anything that idotic on my blog. You won't even get the first chance. Thanks fo outing yourself as a complete assclown.

Draginol

on Apr 27, 2004

Yea, already deleted his comment.

Plaps

on Apr 28, 2004

Aw man, I wish I could've seen it, was it funny?
Hey, Draginol, I was just curious as to how long you guys have been working on the Political Machine. Or is this not the right forum to ask this about? Oy, my grammar goes downhill everyday.

A lot of liberals are convinced that this war would be so much better if the French and the Germans were involved, but the thing they forget to mention is that Bush already headed down that path. Saddam violated the UN treaty (right word?) that kept him in power after the First Gulf War. So many people are blindly believing the crap that goes on the news and the random conspiracy theories that they heard that they never thought that France and Germany just don't like America, and they're pissed off that we > them. People will try to defend the French, but I know, I've been there, if you speak English or look American, they blow you off and won't even talk to you. It really pisses me off that the French have gotten their asses pulled out of the fire by us and then they go around and turn their noses up to us. Germany too, we kept them alive and kicking after the Second World War, when France was again ready to let them take the brunt of the reparations. Honestly, I think that the French should be licking our shoes right now.

Island Dog

on Apr 28, 2004

"A lot of liberals are convinced that this war would be so much better if the French and the Germans were involved, but the thing they forget to mention is that Bush already headed down that path."

The French were never going to go along with removing Saddam. The "oil for food" scam will show how keeping Saddam in power was in the best interest for France. Everytime Kerry or another democrat talks about the "international community", they mean France and Germany.

JeremyG

on Apr 28, 2004

And if you think Bush or Cheney or whoever your American boogeyman is, they're angels compared to what we're facing over in the middle east. The terrorists would not think twice about exterminating every man, woman, and child in Europe and the United States had they the means.

I like how you constantly use the word terrorist when talking about Iraq. It shows your true lack of understanding, and it's infinately more prejudice and racist than than my post which spelled out my dislike for Jews and Pakistani's.

The fact is that the people we're fighting in Iraq are not part of the terrorist groups that performed actions like 9/11. They're people from whose culture perspective are fighting an outside force that walked into their country and setup martial law. They don't see it as a noble act of liberation, and they sure dont see it as "America weeding out the terrorists".

As long as people constnatly lump the Iraq war in with fighting terrorism, they will never earn the support they need to make it look good in the history books.

JeremyG

on Apr 28, 2004

Additionally i find it rediculous that you can claim the insurgents are not devoted to a diplomatic solution. If you asked them, I'm sure they have something they want...they arent just blowing off ammunition because they have nothing better to do.

Just because someone doesn't want to concede certain points, doesnt mean that they dont want a peaceful, diplomatic solution. If they want to keep the city for themselves, and then they will cease fire....well thats a starting point. Where that may seem like an outrageous demand to you, the troops being there in the first place probably seems outrageous to them.

If you are unable to make consessions and compromises, then it is YOU who is not devoted to a diplomatic solution.

Draginol

on Apr 28, 2004

JerememyG: This may come as a shock but your agreement or not with my viewpoint does not determine whether I "understand" the issue. If you don't think there are terrorists in Iraq then I really have little use for anything you have to say. People who set off suicide bombs near police stations to kill civilians are not soldiers. They're terrorists.

It is pretty plain where your viewpoint comes from. To side with people who intentionally burn civilians alive and then hang their bodies upside down from bridges speaks volumes. But I'm sure in your mind they're just heroic members of the resistance.

Solitair

on Apr 28, 2004

I totally agree with the concept that there is not always a diplomatic solution acceptable to both sides.

This does not make the military solution right or justified.

The important point is the word acceptable. What is acceptable to the Us and what is acceptable to Iraqi freedom fighters are two different things. From their view point, the fact that the US refuses all diplomatic attempt to leave, only leaves military actions left.

Trying to link Britian fighting against Hitler with the US fighting insurgency in Iraq though is a bad analogy. Maybe we should flip the analogy. Hitler wanted peace, the UK refused and would never agree, therefore he had to defeat them and invade. It is the US which has invaded iraq and is the aggressor in this war.

Where I believe your article suffers is the assumption that America tried diplomancy first. It didn't. They didn't even tell their own tame coalition government of their plans. They just attacked in retaliation for the 4 deaths. No wonder so many Iraqi are now beginning to hate their 'liberators'.

Paul.

Draginol

on Apr 28, 2004

It's a very apt analogy because World War II is a great example in which there was no possibility of a diplomatic solution. Nothing less than the total extermination of non-Aryans in "Greater Germany" was acceptable to Hitler. What "compromise" do you imagine them coming to?

Similarly, in World War II, it was the US and UK that invaded continental Europe. Not the other way around. So by your argument, the allies were the "aggressors".

Acting like the US invaded Iraq on a whim is not constructive. You can disagree with whether the US had enough reason to use military force but it isn't honest to portray it as happening in a vacuum. Ultimately, the people of the United States wanted Saddam removed. A large plurality of Americans wanted him removed in 1998. Americans wanted him removed. The United States is a democracy and hence Saddam was removed.

Now Saddam is gone. The US wants to turn over power to a new government and bring its troops home. But the US needs to stay to ensure that there's enough security for a new government to be able to be strong enough to hold elections and such. It isn't acceptable that Saddam would be removed so that some dictator could jump in by force of arms.

Americans don't want to be in Iraq any more than the average Iraqi wants to be occupied. But the US has a responsibility to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq so that its people can take care of themselves.

JeremyG

on Apr 28, 2004

And there you go drawing lines. Never in my comments did I say I was taking the side of anyone. I was simply pointing out that theres errors in lumping groups of people together. You turned it into "you're with me or against me", not me.

Draginol

on Apr 28, 2004

The people shooting at US troops are against us. The ones not shooting at US troops are either for us or neutral.

Shades of gray is great but not always useful as a practical matter.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!