Who Won in Iraq?
To Listen: Get Adobe Flash Player, or download an mp3 at the bottom of the post.
George Bush’s now infamous May, 2003, aircraft carrier moment has already joined Dewey Beats Truman in the top ranks of spectacularly wrong-headed optimism. More than three years later, is it still too early for anyone to unfurl a “Mission Accomplished” banner? The editors of Foreign Policy don’t think so. They’ve just published a series of essays in response to the simple question Who Won in Iraq?, coralling “the top 10 people, nations, and ideas that can declare victory in Iraq — a somewhat counterintuitive take given how bad the situation there has become.”
The answers run the gamut, and bring up wonderful contradictions. Iran, says our old standby (and Middle East expert) Vali Nasr, echoing what he’s talked about on our show here, here, here, and here. No, it’s Sunni strongmen in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, says Carnegie Endowment scholar Marina Ottaway. Bush père speechwriter David Frum says that Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” has won the day fourteen years after its coinage. Other answers? Moqtada al-Sadr, Al Qaeda, the U.N., and the price of oil.
None of the individual answers comes as a complete surprise (well, maybe Israel and “Old Europe”), but in the aggregate they provide a novel way of looking at the effects of the Iraq War. As China expert Steve Tsang, who nominated China in his essay, told us on the phone today, “Nobody wins… but some people benefit.”
Daniel Levy
-
Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation
Member of the official Israel negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks
Daniel Byman
-
Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University
Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution
Fawaz Gerges
-
Chair, International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies, Sarah Lawrence College
Author, Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy
Visiting professor, American University in Cairo
Steven Tsang
-
Senior research fellow in Modern Chinese Studies, St. Antony’s College, Oxford University
Author, The Cold War’s Odd Couple: The Unintended Partnership between the Republic of China and the United Kingdom, 1950-1958
Martin Wolf
- Associate editor and chief economic commentator, Financial Times
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Vali Nasr, Wins in Iraq? 1. Iran, Foreign Policy Magazine, March/April 2007: “In the political vacuum that followed Saddam’s fall, Iranian influence quickly spread into southern Iraq on the back of commercial connections—driven by a growing volume of trade and a massive flow of Iranian pilgrims into shrine cities of Iraq—and burgeoning intelligence and political ties. Iran’s influence quickly extended to every level of Iraq’s bureaucracy, Shiite clerical and tribal establishments, and security and political apparatuses.”
Dexter Filkins, Who Wins in Iraq? 2. Moqtada al-Sadr, Foreign Policy Magazine, March/April 2007: “Four years into the American occupation of Iraq, tens of thousands of people are dead and a nation is imploding. And Moqtada al-Sadr, the young, rabble-rousing cleric few people had even heard of when the invasion began, can now plausibly claim to be the most powerful man in the country.”
Marina Ottaway, Who Wins in Iraq? 6. Arab Dictators, Foreign Policy Magazine, March/April 2007: ” Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. loss of interest in draining the swamp of autocracy once it was confronted by large alligators such as Iran and its allies. Once again, autocracy is thriving—and so are the alligators.”
Jalal Talabani, Who Won in Iraq: The Iraqi People, Foreign Policy Magazine, March/April 2007: “Iraq’s current situation is much more nuanced—and positive—than the one you’ll likely see on the evening news. Since April 9, 2003, Iraqis have wrestled with more than just regime change. They have been living a revolution that has marked a new era in the country’s history. They have seen justice brought to their murderous tyrant. They have won.”
Ashish Srivastava, So who won the Iraq war?, Ashish’s thoughts, May 9, 2006: “Is it US? Militarily yes, politically not yet. Is it Iraq? Militarily no and politically no either. Looks like it was Iran who won this war or at least this phase of it.”
Anonymous, In the end, Saddam wins, Iraq loses, Truth-About-Iraqis, March/April 2007: “In the end, after all the bloodshed, Saddam proved that he was right and everyone who had cheered the invasion of our country was wrong.”
4:12
The reason I say that Israel may win is that there may be a realization coming from what’s going on in Iraq, coming from an appreciation that you need to stabilize the Middle East as a central challenge today, that you need an active peace process again between Israel and its neighbors that may need American leadership.
Daniel Levy
8:00
What happened after the United States invaded Iraq was that much of what Bin Laden had talked about, much of what Al Qaeda stood for, seemed to be vindicated in the eyes of much of the Muslim world . . . The United States, rather than being ancillary to the regions problems, really was at the core of it.
Daniel Byman
15:58
What the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq did or has done is to remove Iraq as a major historical rival to Iran. And that’s made the unrivalled superpower in the gulf. In fact, I would argue that the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has done more good to Iran than any great historical event in the 20th century.
Fawaz Gerges
27:37
The Chinese certainly benefited greatly from the war . . . People inevitably compare the Chinese with the Americans, and with the way the Americans have lost the tremendous respect and soft power it enjoyed prior to 9/11. The Iraq war has actually established that the Chinese are able to persuade people that it is actually genuinely rising peacefully. At least, its behavior, in comparison with the Americans, would make people believe so.
Steven Tsang
35:23
The United States is finding that it needs the willing cooperation of quite a number of players to achieve its aims.
Martin Wolf
39:37
I would suggest that nobody in Europe really won, but it’s absolutely clear that the US’s desire to have Europe do what it wanted, without having any ability to choose for itself, failed. In that sense, Old Europe did indeed win.
Martin Wolf
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen






February 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Isn’t it premature to decide who won and who lost? And doesn’t it all depend on future reactions yet to be taken by actors indeterminate? Even those who seem to win victories can in retrospect be seen as having won Phyrric victories, and I can help but think of how well Germany and Japan did after 1945 by being defeated, and how badly the British emerged after having won victory. The future is way too dynamic and has far too many unknown feedback loops for us to figure out where everything is headed. That said, the next 20 years promise to be quite an ‘adventure’, as possibles become probables or certains — or fade into impossibilities.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Probably he means to ask: who are the beneficiaries
Short-term: oil owners
Long-term: economics of green technologies
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
As in most wars…
Weapons makers and sellers win.
The dead and their families lose.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Big losers? Iraq and the United States. Iraqis lost lives, infrastructure, possibly national continuity (if ultimately partitioned), cultural treasures, and ongoing internal socio-cultural rapprochement in the one place in the Middle East where such a thing was possible. Oh, a bit of control over their prmary financial resource, too… and a brain drain, as the middle class (and professional peole who could manage) have fled the country.
The U.S. has lost some soldiers, half a trillion bucks, and the image in the eyes of much of the world of a law-abiding beacon of strength and fairness. That business of “a nation of laws, not of men” went right in the dumpster… because we’ve joined the association of venal, culturally insensitive, ham-handed bullies, willing to dissemble & to torture… a law unto ourselves. The rhetoric of “democracy & freedom” aside, the world knows that we fear losing our “free lunch” lifestyle, that depends upon the oil from this region- period.
Winners? The Kurds, U.S. “no-bid” contractors & the service industries to the Pentagon, any country and any company with oil to sell, and- long term- India & China. ^..^
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I agree with much of the previous, first four posts. Before coming to this thread, I was thinking along herbert browne’s line: Who are the losers, both large and small? And from this, can we conclude that those not on this list are the winners? Probably not.
I believe context and agenda are essential in understanding winner/loser scenarios and this is even more important in trafficking historical data and promulgating claims about the future. Without reminding ourselves that context and agenda will usually inform interpretation, I believe this exercise to be somewhat hollow. However, this does not mean I believe the exercise can be done vacuously without any ontological import or philosophical underpinnings. Just means picking winners/losers is usually smoke or opaqueness for deeper meaning. And this question for this show doesn’t seem to even invite a more nuanced, zero sum approach, which over the long haul may have some value.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Wrong: And this question for this show doesn’t seem to even invite a more nuanced, zero sum approach Er, should be non-zero sum approach. I need more coffee…
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Who won in Iraq? Easy. Halliburton!
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
One group of winners not mentioned in the FP piece: Scowcroftian realists. The liberal internationalists could have made their case following the collapse of neoconservatism, but they didn’t do it. As a result, I think, the “realists” (especially after the Iraq Study Group’s report) have inherited the foreign policy “wise men” credentials: They start with the premise of a dangerous world, with which most Americans concur, and offer a vision that is clearly distinct from the neocons’ and also consistent with the urge of many Americans to limit engagement with the world. I’m probably more of a liberal internationalist myself, but as between neocons and realists, I’ll go with the realists every day.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Al Jazeera has nearly become a household word as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
…and speaking of General Scowcrot: The Alliance for Climate Protection…Governing Council, Who We Are at the Scowcroft Group
Perhaps having eye-of-the-needle meditations? I doubt it with skepticism…
As for prognostications regarding this current adventure, I’m still wondering about this: Richard Perle: Thank God for the death of the UN “Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him…”
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Now that is interesting: “Nobody wins… but some people benefit.â€
I guess that the point is that you must wanted to be part of the game to be a player and thus a winner. Everyone else is just benefiting from the side bets. Or getting shot when one of the players pulls out his guns and starts shooting wildly when the game doesn’t go his way.
The one thing that is clear to very many people in this war is that there are not two sides to the war. I had an bit of an understanding of that during my later youth and early adult during the Vietnam war, but still don’t understand all the factions and all the bystanders swept into the chaos. And while I am sure that there were many sides to the Korean War, WWII, WWI, and even Das Boot of a few years ago, and Clint Eastwood’s recent efforts, fail to reveal any of that.
How was China swept into the world wars by outside forces in these three wars (Korea, WWII, WWI)? And of course, how will China be seen in history for this Iraq war, which is sweeping in Iran, which because of Bush’s foriegn policy is proving an opportunity for China to gain access to Iran’s oil.
I’m not interested in the possible course of these side bets in the Iraq war, but wonder if this war is different only because the press in all its varied form has much greater access to both the sources and to the media consumers. Is the Iraq war fundamentally different from prior wars, or have all the other wars had similar side bets with their winners and losers?
To answer my own question, I think that the Zionists won their side bet as a result of WWII, and would probably have won no matter whether Hitler won or lost.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The biggest winners are the U.S. weapons manufacturers, oil companies, contractors (like Halburton), and politicians getting kickbacks from these industries.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
The citizens of Tibet and India may have a different view towards China. But, I think I understand Mr. Tsang’s analysis. It relies upon, to some degree, amnesia and looking superficially less hegemonic in policy behavior than the more extreme brute on the global stage.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Oil is fungible – access is a matter of payment
China as a superpower?
Mr Tsang plz define superpower….
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Clash of cultures by bad policy?
Chris corrected that – he is good at smoothing this stuff over !
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
I am not so sure Israeli’s would feel they won although I like David Levy’s idea that a peaceful settlement with Palestinians and Arab neighbors is more urgent now especially since the USA is weaker. If Iran won, then Israel is not better off. Hezbollah has been strengthened and emboldened. Hamas as well. Militants have been strengthened with more sophisticated weapons. The Syrians who have been asking for talks with Israel are in a much better position to ask for and get the Golan back as well as continue their influence in Lebanon. I doubt that Israeli’s would say they will end up with the same deal at any peace table that they might have had before Iraq.
Israel has been able to deny having nuclear weapons. It’s more of an issue now. The idea of a nuclear-free Middle East ( with Iran threatening and other states now reacting) has surfaced and perhaps can be seriously discussed. That would be positive.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
The war is still ongoing. Why do you insist on declaring winners and losers at this time. It may take decades to actually see the true results.
Our own American revolution started with the French and Indian wars during the 1750′s and we really did not come about as a true independent nation until almost 30 years later.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
I like your lead-in to this story. You used Bushes speech on the carrier. You totally ignored the fact that the speech was in regards to the militarys destruction of the Iraqi army and the removal of S.H. But once again you have let partisan journalism get in the way of truth. This seems to be fairly common on this site.
Good job.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Anent by post above Daniel Levy, not David levy. Sorry.
This just in from my blogmeister via Talking Points Memo ( Josh M Marshall):
U.S. hardens line on talks between Jerusalem, Damascus
It says: The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.
The American argument is that even “exploratory talks” would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there.
As the Syrians ask for talks during this time when it is holding better cards ( thanks to the Lebanon and Iraq Wars- nevermind the Hariri thang) they continue to help Hezbollah arm apparently. RC21 is correct however we can see what directions things are going in at least for the next couple of years as the US administration seems to believe it can call the shots.
Perhaps the Israeli’s will disobey and explore what is after all in their own interest, unless Olmert, like Bush, thinks he can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat ( in another round).
from the article, voices of emboldened Syria:
Three Syrian political analysts and politicians were interviewed on national television and denied the report on Syrian arms procurement and testing of ballistic missiles. However, all three emphasized that if there is no progress toward peace with Israel, then it is the “natural right” of Syria to take other types of action in order to liberate the Golan Heights.
Muhammed Habesh, a Syrian legislator, in an interview with the Al Arabiya satellite channel, said that “if Israel attempts to do something stupid, it will pay a hefty price for it.”
Talking Points Memo comments with this question-quote linked from Andrew Sullivan:
What’s more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That’s not the America I love – but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.”
This is the critical question, when you consider the aftershocks of what President Bush has wrought over the last 6 years. On the evidence of the last six years, is the US an aggressive, destablizing force on the global stage or a benign, ordering force?
Who can give an answer to that question that they’re proud of?
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
China won. We are in hock to China. Now Cheney is firing up his rhetoric against China.(is that like shooting Harry?)
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
We pay the trade deficit in cash.
China uses the cash to buy our debt. They can sell the debt at anytime in the debt markets. If they want to hold to maturity and get paid, we sell debt to someone else and use the proceeds to pay China.
If we can’t sell debt to someone else, we print up cash and pay the Chinese.
Here’s the amusing part:
The Chinese obviously trust us more than we trust us – they keep taking our IOUs.
All part of the greater fool theory….
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Case study: Algeria since 1962. Who won? Who lost? Did the ‘pied-noir’ who fled Algeria lose when he/she started over in France, a place of relative peace? Did the Algerian peasant who acheived ‘independence’ win by living under Boumedienne? Did Ben Bella win by becoming the first leader of Algeria, or did he lose by being ousted by falling to Boumedienne? Did the FLN win? Or did the folks who got jobs as engineers with Sonotrach win? Or did the Russians and Chinese who supplied the FLN with weapons win? Did those killed almost instantly in terrorist bombings — who would have otherwise been tortured over a period of months — win or lose? And were FLN leaders picked off by jealous rivals inside their own camp winners because they held leadership positions — or losers because they suffered premature deaths? Winning and losing are evanescent states, and even decades later it’s difficult to know whether Algerian independence was a great victory or a great defeat. It’s somewhat subjective….
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Those questions tie into the discussion on morality – the zeitgeist matters
When it is nationalism – go that way, everyone will be better off
When it is globalism – go that way, everyone will be better off
When the Brits anchored in Manhattan harbor in 1664, the Dutch basically said: we are here to make money, who cares what the flag says
That is the way to go…
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Tom B:
I would say history shows Le Pen’s Front National to have been the main winner in your case study.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out a big winner — a winner that has tangible winnings to point to, and that is the American Left. The Democratic victories in both houses were fueled in large part by antiwar sentiment, and more liberal candidates suddenly became electable and then elected.
If I believed that America would be defined by the Bush Administration for any length of time, I would have emigrated already! Since Reagan, the conservatives have managed to convince the middle that they have a monopoly on everything that is good and holy. With this war (and the response to Hurricane Katrina, and dozens of other outrages), the Bush conservatives have shown themselves to be arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and have a thorough disregard for the Constitution and the lives and well-being of our troops (and of many more citizens, too.)
The impeachment of Bush and Cheney would immediately start America’s restoration in our own eyes and to those of the rest of the world. If they get to run out the clock, our next Democratic president will have to start that process on January 20, 2009. I sure hope that reinstating science’s role in informing policy will be part of that restoration, as well as a greater appreciation of our Constitution.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Just a thought about winning as applied to most ‘artificial’ games. Chess has an endpoint (checkmate). The computer game Civilization has an endpoint (the year 2050 in most scenarios). Individual lives have endpoints. But what are we to make of games with no agreed-upon endpoint? History can either be seen as a play that always goes into one more act… interminably… or as a game where the score is always mounting, but never totalled. It would be very interesting (and I suspect some science fiction author has already done this) if we were to have a war with a predetermined time limit, an agreed upon set of rules, and a mutually accepted scoring system. At the end of the ‘game’ everyone could announce the score. United States: 723 — Iraq: 122 — Iran: 894. “And our winner of this game is IRAN!” (Sound of cheers in the background fading into an advertisement for a newly developed body soap….).
March 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I visited this site it gives excellent information about Insurance and for more details on Medical Insurance, more permanent health coverage, you may want to look at another health insurance option, such as an Individual Medical policy.
http:// http://www.easystm.com