Let's Give It Up For The Shoe Tosser!

Muntader al-Zaidi might have been acting out some personal type of rage and frustration as he hurled his shoes and insults at George W. Bush. His action has made him a form of hero to many folks in the Mideast (and probably elsewhere.)

The Geek is of the view that al-Zadi's up front gesture of scorn and anger raises an important question or two. While the 29 year old TV journalist may have been a bit over the edge with his demonstration, it deserves to be considered as something other than a mere juvenile outburst. It also requires an assessment which goes beyond placing politically expedient labels.

Al-Zaidi has been adopted as a poster boy by people on the Left: See, the Iraqis hate us and our imperialistic ways. He has received a similar sort of bogus sanctification by those on the Right: See, it proves Iraq is "free." No person could do the same in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or pre-2003 Iraq.

Arguably both labels have a degree of truth in advertising. More importantly, neither does service to what probably lies behind not only al-Zaidi's pitching arm, the applause he has received, and the reaction to the Zaidi-throws-and-Bush-ducks episode.

To the Geek, the tossing of shoes and hurling of epithets demands an examination of what the US invasion of Iraq has brought about. This requires asking a simple question which is very difficult to answer--or, at the least to formulate a coherent response upon which a consensus can agree free of ideological bias.

The purpose of war is to bring about a better state of peace. All forms of war, aggressive, defensive, insurgent are waged in order to establish a post-war regime which is superior to that which existed prior to the cannon's roar. Not surprisingly, the details of what constitutes a better state of peace differs between aggressor and defender, insurgent and counterinsurgent. That difference is why the war is being fought.

Interventionary wars such as those being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq lay a special burden on the intervenor--that is the country which starts the war--not only to define but to achieve a state of peace which is demonstrably superior for both the intervenor and the target nation. Let's walk through that again. It's important.

The only consideration which raises an intervention above the level of naked and perhaps unprovoked aggression is the outcome. Does the outcome provide a better state of peace for the country being invaded? If the answer is yes, then the war is ethically justified. If the answer is no, then the war is nothing other than naked aggression for the benefit of the invader.

The Administration of George W. Bush and its supporters among We the People argue that removing Saddam Hussein and opening the possibility of democracy to the Iraqi people is, in and of itself, a better state of peace. Those who have opposed the war state that the results to date constitute a worse state of peace.

The proponents of the invasion having resulted in a better state of peace point to the elections in Iraq, its demonstration of effective sovereignty as embodied in the recent Status of Forces Agreement, and the trials of Saddam, Chemical Ali and others for both war crimes and crimes against the Iraqi people as proof that a better state of peace exists today. They point to al-Zaidi's actions as a clear example of the current state of Iraqi freedom.

Opponents of the American adventure in regime change note the several million internal displaced persons as well as the large number of Iraqi refugees in adjacent countries. They also note the ruined infrastructure, the destroyed neighborhoods, towns and villages. And, the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who would be alive absent the American invasion. To the people holding this view, al-Zaidi was a symbol of the bitter resentment, not to say hatred, resident in the Iraqi victims of American aggression.

From the Geek's historically driven perspective, the American experiences in both the Philippines and Vietnam provide a guide for assessing whether or not the US effort in Iraq has been ethically justified as bringing about a better state of peace. He would like to take a brief look at both guiding cases.

In the Philippines, the US defeated a well developed, broadly supported indigenous independence movement. The cost of this was high in both American and Filipino lives. The military success was predicated not so much on the skill of American soldiers or the quality of their weapons and tactics as it was on distorting the political process which existed within Filipino society.

The same distortions continued during the long years of US occupation. They were exacerbated not only by the Japanese invasion and occupation of the islands but by the years of US backed counterinsurgency efforts against assorted communist insurgent movements during the decades which followed Filipino independence.

The distortions continued even after the communists were defeated and have done much to assure the rise and continuation of an Islamist separatist insurgency, which is both slow motion in pace and bloody in action. A close examination of the forces at work in Filipino society and politics indicates that the same basic trajectory of class based politics and internal divisions would have existed absent the American invasion, conquest, and occupation.

However, the trajectory would have been neither so long in duration nor bloody in its effects had the American government accepted Filipino independence at the end of the Spanish-American War. The American presence was like a heavy weight put on an elastic surface--it made the distortion deeper with the inevitable consequence that it took longer for the elastic to return to normal following the removal of the weight.

The same general pattern can be seen within Vietnam. The conflicts between North and South existed for centuries before the French Indochina War. The attempts by the French to reestablish colonial authority worsened this pre-existing trajectory as did the later American support of the South Vietnamese regime.

Following the defeat of the US, the North gained operational dominance over the entire country. This was as expected. But, as Hanoi has found out, there is a whale of a difference between operational dominance and unquestioned political authority.

As a result of changes both within and outside Vietnam, the county may continue as a one party state with strong authoritarian aspects but has increasingly been acknowledging the necessity of freer enterprise, a more liberal approach to the rights of the citizens, and the strong necessity of something akin to a rule of law--not party or regional connections and prerogatives.

In short, the long resident trajectories of Vietnamese society have continued. Vietnam today is what Vietnam would have been in any event had there been no American war in the country.

Leaving aside minor quibbles such as American public health measures in the Philippines or the necessity of global containment, the results of the American efforts in both venues were failures. Neither brought about a state of peace better than that which would have emerged without the US military involvement.

Rather than bringing about a better state of peace in either country, the US wars and occupations delayed the arrival of the better state. Neither American effort was ethically justifiable.

Looking back it is clear that the "golden moment" for effective and low cost regime change with a meaningful chance of bringing about a better state of peace in Iraq came and went in 1991. The halting of Coalition forces on the approaches to Basra might have been tactically and logistically justified. The standing by with folded arms as the Shiite uprising was bloodily crushed was not.

That suppression coupled with the years of sanctions and "No-Fly Zones" neither constituted a better state of peace nor a meaningful push for internal Iraqi-driven changes. Rather, the long years of deprivation, repression and collapsing economy made the achievement of internal stability now all the harder.

The regime of Saddam Hussein would not have lasted many more years had the US and other troops stayed at home in 2003. Yes, the death of Saddam would have brought internal power struggles, deaths, and the emergence of yet another authoritarian regime.

Such a pattern is not foreign to the Iraqi social and cultural experience. A transition to another, probably slightly less obnoxious regime would have been both accepted by and acceptable to the Iraqi public generally. The strongman, the oligarch, is completely in keeping with the culture, the history of Iraq, and the region generally.

To sum it up: The American invasion of Iraq was not justified. It did not--could not--bring about a better state of peace. All the invasion has done--could have done--is delay the organic emergence of a better state--as defined by the Iraqis.

George W. Bush, and the world, should be grateful that all al-Zaidi had to throw was his shoes. He (and many Iraqis) probably would have preferred a grenade.