Security as baseline

Dan,

It’s true that in some ways we’re fighting not only militias but a regional modus vivendi as well. But I think it’s critical to realize that security is absolutely a necessary condition for every one of the institutions we’re trying to create in Iraq. Uncontained violence–in this case, violence without consequences–poisons the civic-political environment. It depresses an already damaged economy. Worse, it feeds and spreads the obsession of a very few dangerous men who’ve made bloodshed into a sacrament.

None of this is to say that simply securing Iraq’s streets will do much to foster democracy or avert a civil war. But if internecine violence is not contained, then civil war looks like the only option left for Iraq. What I’m pushing here is a reevaluation of our short-term goals in Iraq (who’re we kidding? Iraq was a “short-term” goal.) Elections, bargaining among representatives, nascent political parties…these things make for good headlines, but they’re empty. Perhaps, for now, we ought to concentrate less on fostering democracy and more on fostering stability.

Unfortunately, this means more troops, not fewer which, given the climate here at home, just is not an option. Sorry, Iraq. We fracked up, but we’re not willing to pay for it.

Best of luck.

 –Morgan Hubbard

Can we really “establish” the rule of law?

Morgan,

I agree, to a point– Ashdown’s second principle is the most important and, arguably, the most overlooked. In every liberal project there’s a great danger of pushing democracy before its institutional prerequisites– such as the rule of law or a market economy.

But I also think there’s a danger in thinking that the rule of law is something that can be established “quickly.” The United States enjoyed the great and unusual luxury of developing democracy and the rule of law in a relative vacuum. Other than the customs of various Native American tribes, which were, to be sure, quite disparate, there were no existing institutional norms with which American-style liberalism had to contend. In cases like Iraq, we don’t have the luxury of an institutional vacuum. Indeed, there is a whole raft of political, cultural, and religious traditions that may (of necessity?) but heads with liberalism. We must be careful, though, not to let this fact lead us down the garden path toward fatalism. Indeed, we have many good reasons to want the rule of law and democracy in other parts of the world. But we must be careful to exercise patience in our push for these institutional goals.

At the end of the day, security alone is not the answer. When generation after generation has been taught that force is the best method for resolving political differences, it won’t matter too much how many tanks we can put on the streets.

Institutions by nature evolve, and are never easily imposed. Maybe the best we can do is sit back and see if our ideas take hold.

That aside, it’s a great book, isn’t it?
-Daniel Corbett

Seven wrong turns in Iraq

The below is taken directly from Niall Ferguson’s book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. The ideas are his, but they’ll dessicate on the page if we don’t talk about them. So let’s. I contend that these seven principles for nation-building, given by former British Liberal Democrat Party leader Paddy Ashdown in 2003, are spot-on. The problem is, the American project in Iraq seems to have considered them only casually, if at all. We’ve preferred soundbytes and empty promises about timetables and deadlines to any substantive rubric for success, and it’s killing us. Ashdown’s principles were:

1. [To have] a good plan and stick to it. This plan needs to be drawn up, not as an afterthought, but well in advance, as an integral part of the planning for the military campaign.

2. [To] establish rule of law–and do so as quickly as possible…it is much more important to establish the rule of law quickly than to establish democracy quickly. Because without the former, the latter is soon undermined.

3. [To] establish your credibility straight away. The more robustly a peacekeeping force deals with any initial challenges to its authority, the fewer challenges there will be in the future.

4. To start as quickly as possible on the major structural reforms–from putting in place a customs service or reliable tax base, to reforming the police and the civil service, to restructuring and screening the judiciary, to transforming the armed forces.

5. [To ensure] that the international community organizes itself in [the] theater in a manner that can work and take decisions.

6. [To establish] an exceptionally close relationship between the military and civlian aspects of peace implementation.

7. [To] avoid setting deadlines, and settle in for the long haul…Installing the software of a free and open society is a slow business. It cannot be done…in a year or so…Peace-keeping needs to be measured not in months but in decades. What we need here…is “sticktoitiveness”…the political will, the unity of purpose, and the sheer stamina as an international community to see the job through to lasting success. That means staying on, and sticking at it, long after the CNN effect has passed.”

Ashdown, I think, is more right than I can say. Unfortunately for us and for Iraq’s short term, we deserve poor marks on each of these seven key criteria.

We currently labor under several severe limitations. They are, in no order, (a) that the American electoral process and our unnaturally short attention spans lead us to demand instant results, (b) that our capacity to put boots on the ground, military or adviser, is limited by the size and disposition our already-strained military, (c) that the American character is poorly constituted to accept losses of life, especially our own soldiers, and (d) that this project is, internationally speaking, now a non-starter. I’m sure there are others.

But it seems to me that Ashdown’s most important point was #2. Nothing quells political spirit like constant, gnawing fear. Nothing hampers democracy like internecine death squads. Until Iraqis feel safe, we’ll get nowhere, and no televised election is going to change that. Security must come first–even if it means postponing the establishment of a free and open political society–but it may be that Americans have lived in security for so long that we forget just how much it means to live under the rule of law. What establishing such rule of law will take, given the situation on the ground, is up for debate. What do you think?

–Morgan Hubbard

Put down the egg roll and walk away slowly…

Morgan and readers,

With the traffic camera debate (perhaps) behind us, it’s time to move on to another debate that may get just as heated. Here we go…

For those of you who weren’t already aware, last week, the New York City Board of Health voted unanimously to ban the use of trans fats in all of the city’s restaurants. The ban would require all restaurants to change their recipies to exclude even a minute amount of artifical trans fats. Health inspectors would enforce the ban during their routine inspections.

I oppose the decision for three reasons:

1. It’s a personal decision, not a public one.

I am, without a doubt, a health-conscious person. I read labels, buy fresh food, and, at any given time, have anywhere from 2-4 containers of tofu in my fridge. I have no disagreement with the idea behind New York’s ban. We could all use a little less trans fat, I’m sure. But this goal is best met by voluntary decisions (both by diners and by restaurants) based on good information. Simply put, decision to employ a blanket ban on a substance (however well-intentioned it may be) is, in general, quite dangerous for a number of reasons– the two biggest being 1.) a violation of individual autonomy and 2.) its unintended consequences, which brings us to

2. The ban will hurt the least well-off. 

This is the issue of unintended consequences. I’m sure the members of the Board of Health did not sit down and say to one another: “Hey, let’s see how we can unfairly burden family-owned, ethnic businesses today!” But, effectively, that’s what this ban is likely to do. Why is this so? Think about what foods contain the most trans fats. The foods on this list are served at pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants, doughnut shops, and the like. Granted, the policy will affect fast food chains, but, as a rule, the larger the chain is, the easier it will be for them to comply.

3. The precedent could be a dangerous one.

This decision comes three years after New York asserted itself as the vanguard of public health policy by banning smoking. And, looking around the United States, it seems as if the rest of the country has followed New York’s lead on smoking bans, with cities like Victoria, Texas joining in on the anti-smoking crusade.

Those are my initial thoughts. Now, I open it up to the rest of you.

–Daniel Corbett