Comments (11)

• Neil Craig

  I tend to agree. £ separate confederal units with a common central bank (probably run by a Moslem banker from Singapore) & all US troops moving out of the Kurd & Shia areas & eventually everywhere except the bank building, would do everybody some good.

  It is difficult to believe that western governments who killed people on the principle that Yugoslavia had to be broken up are now killing people because they really believe in the principle that Iraq must be held together.

  Published: April 13, 2006 9:44 AM

• Sarcasm

  I believe that without a central government there will be anarchy and people will start setting off car bombs and killing each other. Furthermore, Iraq should merge with its neighbors Syria, Iran, and France. Continued price controls to hold down the cost of gasoline should ease the transition.

  Published: April 13, 2006 9:58 AM

• Graeme Bird

  I don't know about Iraq. But if there is killing between peoples there is something to be said for getting two parallel lines of razor wire, and some mines. Separating peoples or towns off in this way (lets say about 70% of the perimeter) to mitigate the violence.....

  Just keep chopping it down until there is no more violence... And then you just say to each sectioned off region..... You can keep folks out but you must not keep folks in....

  YOU CAN KEEP PEOPLE OUT. BUT YOU MUST NOT STOP ANYONE FROM LEAVING.

  
  And that's it.....

  Published: April 13, 2006 10:33 AM

• tz

  Neil - You would really prefer a confederation with the greater evil of a central bank? I would much prefer a national government without a central bank or any fiat currency powers. Such is normally sufficient to limit the intrusiveness. (e.g. Al and Tom's big battle around 1800 over the BotUS).

  There is anarchy now with what is passing for a central government in Iraq, and I see no reason to see it end just because you have any of several different sets of clowns in Bagdad.

  Only something totalitarian can repress hatred with enough violence to prevent other violence, so maybe Saddam should be put back (and no, I'm not kidding, and I think a vote of the Iraqi's might be suprising)?

  No man or group of them, either in the form of a government or market can destroy the evil within fallen man. And that is what is the fundamental difficulty in Iraq.

  Pride, Anger, Envy and the other deadly sins are all there, inciting violence.

  But still, 4th generation war is fought at a moral level. We could have won if we played by those rules and specifically didn't compromise one inch to cruelty or injustice in our handling.

  We would have suffered a few more casualties in the beginning, and the press would have asked why we didn't repay brutality with brutality, but after a few months of not destroying their children, homes and businesses, but acting to preserve sunni, shiite, and kurd equally, they would have been our friends and the Neocon's suggestion of being welcomed with roses would have come true.

  Violence and hate is a cycle that must be broken, and that only happens when someone is willing to turn the other cheek - to absorb and not revenge a wrong - while keeping the injustice visible.

  Instead Bush says he needs to be just like Saddam to fight terrorism (and this is not an exaggeration - his detention and doublespeak on torture betrays him). The only difference is the practical limits on our brutality - we need to keep some illusion, and we are aliens there and must leave some day, whereas Saddam didn't care and was on his home turf.

  The small step from pragmatic cruelty to pragmatic nuclear holocaust is being taken even now. Does the doomsday clock have a 100th of a second dial? We are approaching the last SMPTE frame number.
  

  Published: April 13, 2006 12:16 PM

• Ralph

  tz, you may have a truth there: "No man or group of them, either in the form of a government or market can destroy the evil within fallen man."

  The problem is, if your statement is true, then all humans are "fallen", so that, as Adam Smith pointed out, free competition will act as the "invisible hand" to regulate behavior.

  Speaking from a biblical perspective, as I assume you are, a look at Romans 8:7 would reveal some interesting points. If the natural, fleshy mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to the laws of God, then every attempt to organize humans in such a way as to represent God would end in constant proliferation and "speciation' of religious ideas, as we see around us today, with over 30,000 varieties within christianity alone.

  Your statement along with Romans 8:7 would suggest that it is the very capacity to organize and subdue under the power of government that creates the upheaval of violence and terrorism as technology empowers the individual.

  I suggest that it is these two forces, older technology that empowered centralization, confronting newer technology that empowers the individual, which creates terrorism as a political force worldwide. Part of that newer technology is the internet which gives greater individual voice to more people. Older technologies demanded ideology, new technologies demand interaction and individual initiative.

  If Darwin is correct, struggle for survival will once again take on a more individualistic nature. On the other hand, the biblical book of James, chapter four says essentially the same thing as Darwin, with war and fighting emerging as the result of personal desires in our "members".

  The difference historically is that where war was once fought collectively by organized armies, war is now being fought using information technologies to herald terrorist attacks against organized armies. Unfortunately, terrorism is the warfare of the future, and it's likely to get worse.

  Published: April 13, 2006 12:48 PM

• Jim Stewart

  A key statement is: "Many believe that as long as governments are chosen through some democratic process, they are essentially benign." I do not know if "many" is intended to imply "most", but I suspect that most voters in the US, UK, etc, don't believe their governments are essentially benign. Based on the evidence of polling in the elections conducted by those governments, I suspect that most such voters believe the best they can expect is the lesser of two evils.

  The above raises the old question of why majorities tolerate evil governments. The ancient answer was intimidation plus public violence against individuals and groups who tried to lead and organise the majority [eg Spartacus]. The modern answer is that the individuals who make up the majority are deceived into believing that they are in a minority and that the lesser of two evils is a popular choice.

  The deception succeeds first because evil governments keep their subjects too busy and distracted to understand that the lesser of two evils is a product of ballots used to "defeat the franchise" of the majority. The deception succeeds second because evil governments serve the interests of a minority/oligarchy that tell us we have democracy and conceal how ballots used to "defeat the franchise".

  It seems that Chris Westley, like so many Misesians, may have been taken in by such propaganda without examining the facts kept concealed [like Misesian theory] by the mass media.

  Published: April 13, 2006 7:11 PM

• morris

  Historically Iraq was never a nation. It was part of the Ottoman empire, created by the allies after WW 1, and held together by a tyrant. Better to let it be divided into three independent nations.

  Published: April 14, 2006 12:19 PM

• TGGP

  One of the most annoying things about political articles at Mises and Lewrockwell is the assumption that the people harmed by governments are now libertarians/anarcho-capitalists. They aren't; almost nobody is. It almost reminds me of the delusional leftist division into oppressors and oppressed: discrimated against Sephardic Israelis should have been the natural allies of the poor Palestinians and united against the Ashkenazi governmental elite, yet they prefer Likud to Labor; Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands should understand the mistreatment of homosexuals and join them in activism for fairness and equality; but instead they viciously assault them. And of course the Iraqis would have deposed Saddam if it weren't for that meddling U.S (he may have crushed all previous revolts, but they'd get him sooner or later!). I'm sure North Korea will explode into freedom very soon, surely they've been oppressed longer than most. And because people are naturally good, if they actually did pull off a succesful revolution, it would naturally result in more freedom, never you mind the French and Russian revolutions and countless dictatorial games of musical-chairs endemic throughout the third world.

  
  If you ask me the instinct toward collectivism and idiotic desire to deprive your neighbor of freedom (especially property rights) is part of human nature. The Western model in which the government recognizes (some of the time at least) rights and depends on the consent of its citizens is a rarity, and when you find a place like Hong Kong with something like that its because one of those evil imperialist countries like England imposed it on them. I don't think we should impose "freedom" on Iraqis because I don't care about Iraq and think its a waste of tax money.

  That being said, seperatism is pretty much always a good idea (I had been under the impression that the "International Community" were against the break-up of Yugoslavia, because after all ethnic diversity is wonderful). I still don't understand why Bevin Chu seems so adamant against it in one instance. I have a feeling the Shiites won't be as gung-ho for that when they control the government, a lot of them are enjoying enacting revenge on Sunni Arabs now that the shoe is on the other foot. The Kurds already have plenty of de-facto autonomy, but Turkey will not tolerate any independent Kurdistan. Bring the subject up with just about any Turk and they will say in shock "But how can we let the Kurds have that after all the horrible things the PKK did?".

  To the comment that things would have been much easier if the U.S had "fought fair", I just have to laugh. Wars are not clean, the U.S fights cleaner than virtually any military that existed previously because it can afford to. Attempting to equivocate between the bungling U.S authority in Iraq and Saddam (who seemed to get by just fine while chucking people in meat-grinders) is a sure fire way to stop anyone from paying attention to the next thing you have to say. The people bombing mosques and performing mass-executions are Iraqis given relatively free-range by their wonderfully weak central government. The U.S army would be the people putting women's panties on men's heads and laughing. It's always possible that's a more serious offense in an area there are love-songs to death (not written by Glenn Danzig) and cartoons and rumors of Koran flushing result in the arson of Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises. But what is the rational move for a government to take in such a situation? Tell the non-existant Jewish surgeons not to send those non-existant organs to non-existance patients in Tel Aviv? Considering the sharply decreasing marginal cost of "angering the Arab street" when you're already the Great Satan, the restraints on the behavior of the U.S military should be seen as appeasement of people repulsed by war and killing in America, where at one time nearly every family gave a son, brother or father to the Civil War and not only re-elected Lincoln but took out their anger on the south through the Radical Republicans. Doesn't make sense, does it? Or at least not if you view people through the distorting lens of idealism.

  Published: April 14, 2006 1:02 PM

• Maurizio

  Neil: I agree with you. Why should we keep together with the force what the people leaving in a place wants to keep separated? Not having a central government does not mean anarchy. It means a few small governments rather than a big one. Each small government will enforce the law and a civil behaviour for its citizens.

  Published: April 15, 2006 2:29 AM

• Ricardo Carvalho

  What about the Assirians that seeks for independence for a long time and the majority of them currently lives in northen Iraq, don't they deserve a independent state like Sunnis and Kurds? (Sorry, I know that have a bad engl(r)ish, I will be better with practice).

  Published: April 15, 2006 4:06 PM

• Neil Craig

  The point about a central bank as the surviving Iraqi institution would be that the currency would be out of the hands of the 3 local governments & by choosing a Singaporean Moslem to run it, also out of US hands & in the hands of somebody of proven competence. This would allow Iraq to have a stable currency which is a long way to success. I do not think the alternative of a metallic currency is on the cards, or much better, but the alternative of a unitary government unable to rule & getting the goodies by printing money definitely is.

  Published: May 11, 2006 10:24 AM