I’ve been meaning to post more on the situation on Iraq, but the complexity of the issues, and the rapid alternation of good, bad and ambiguous news makes things difficult. I’ve decided the best way to deal with things is to start with the big picture, and work down. At this stage, I don’t see any reason to change the prediction I made last November that the most plausible stable outcome in Iraq is, in fact if not in name, a two-state solution, with an Islamist Shiite majority government for Iraq as a whole, and the Kurds maintaining effective autonomy in the areas they already control. The recently-announced constitution contains various measures that are supposed to constrain this, but it’s already clear that they will be ineffectual. The Shiite leaders, most notably Sistani, have already stated that a document drawn up by an unelected council can’t constrain a democratically elected government. In any case, as long as they don’t challenge the regional autonomy of the Kurds, the Shiites will have all the votes they need to make the changes they want, particularly an enhancement of the role of Islam and the removal of requirements for power-sharing at the national level.
A second problem, pointed out by Alan at Southerly Buster is the attempt in Article 59 to maintain US military control until a permanent constitution is ratified, and a government elected pursuant to that constitution. This is the same kind of thinking that brought us the proposed regional caucuses. Faced with an elected government demanding the repudiation of this article, what are the Americans going to do? The article will fail in its intended purpose, but may cause a lot of trouble in the meantime. I predicted such an attempt, and its failure when I looked at the situation some months ago , and I see no reason to change this view now.
Despite these difficulties, and the still-real risk that the situation will collapse into civil war once it becomes clear that the historically-dominant Sunnis have been demoted to, at best, a subaltern role, I think the odds are in favour of a reasonably stable outcome.
Does this mean the war was justified? To answer this question, we need to ask two others: Compared to what? and Justified for whom?
On the first question, I’m going to make the comparison with an alternative where Resolution 1441 was carried but the evidence on WMDs was treated honestly, with the result that the UN inspectors were allowed to complete their work. By now they would have shown what we all know, that Saddam had no weapons and no significant weapons programs. Hence, apart from specific restrictions on arms imports, sanctions would have been lifted and, barring accidents, Saddam would still be in power. The military, financial and political resources marshalled for the Iraq war would have been available for other purposes and I’m going to assume that these purposes included a substantial military and civilian aid effort in Afghanistan, aimed at eliminating warlord control and establishing the basis for genuine national elections there.
On this basis, I think it’s fair to say, that, (most of) the people of Iraq are better off, on balance, as a result of the war. This judgement involves the claim that the benefits of political freedom outweigh the loss of life during the war and the subsequent chaos [as far as I can tell, this loss of life was substantially greater than that caused by the depredations of Saddam’s regime in its final years] and the mixed, but generally poor economic performance post-Saddam[1]. And of course, it still relies on the assumption that nothing will go badly wrong.
On the other hand, it’s clear that the rest of the world is worse off compared to the alternative. A much better benefit-cost ratio could have been achieved by allocating more resources to stabilising Afghanistan, and a fraction of the money left over, if allocated to health care, could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa and elsewhere. As far as the national interests of the West are concerned, the war in Iraq has clearly harmed the fight against terrorism, both by providing a recruiting stimulus for terrorists and by diverting effort from the places where it might have been beneficial. If the same effort had gone into capturing bin Laden as was allocated to capturing Saddam, he’d be in Guantanamo Bay or somewhere similar by now[2]. And that’s without considering the damage done to national and international political systems by the campaign of lies used to drive us to war and the vociferous abuse of those who questioned those lies – at a time when unity has never been more desirable, we have rarely been more divided.
fn1. On the basis of this analysis, I’m not inclined to condemn Ahmed Chalabi. Since war with Saddam was not in the interests of the American (or British, or Australian) people, the only way to bring about such a war was to lie. On the basis of the defensible judgement that war was in the long-run interests of the Iraqi people, lying to foreigners was the patriotic thing to do.
fn2. Of course, he may already be there. But I can’t see what purpose would be served by keeping his capture a secret.
John Quiggin 
“a fraction of the money left over, if allocated to health care, could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa and elsewhere.”
But there was no great program to save lives in Africa from which money had been diverted to pay for the war. The money might have been spent on Afghanistan, but probably wouldn’t, since the Americans had already achieved their objective of getting rid of the Taliban.
Has the war weakened the fight against terrorism? Maybe, but then, for what it’s worth, Gaddafi probably wouldn’t have given up his WMD.
Ultimately, I don’t think a utilitarian analysis of whether the war was worth it works very well, or at least it is indecisive. Opponents of the war are better off arguing that since it was based on premises which were known to be false from the outset, it was a bad thing.
pretty good analysis, quiggin.
as regards to your second footnote, i think there is a greater than 50% chance that the US will capture or already has captured Bin Laden. One reason they may not have announced his capture is that Bush is waiting until closer to the election to announce, although i think this is unlikely. I think the most likely outcome is that increased operations in Afghanistan will lead to his capture within a year.
with regard to lieing to justify the war, i am personally not worried by it, but i agree its an interesting question for democratic theory. the reason i am not worried about the weapons hyperbole is because i personally saw through them, and realised the actual reasons were strategic, a desire to lift sanctions, and to do so without making hussein any stronger; thus, invasion was the natural option. should we be worried whether the politcal ignorant can be easily misinformed? i think its an open question.
finally, i think the issue of exaggerating the weapons claims (or at least the perception of this in the public mind) will blow over without too much trouble. people already expect the government to be fairly liberal with the truth. as long as the outcomes of that misinformation are moreover positive, and no major dramas occur in iraq, i think the public will be moreover forgiving, or forgetting.
especially in the US the public will start to become more concerned about home issues, like jobs and the economy. here, since australias role was fairly minimal, and we’re never going to have a massive body count, i cant see that most people will continue to care. thus i think the division will not (or is not) as bad as it might seem. (note already german support in reconstruction in iraq: googling resulted in: Schroeder: Germany Ready to Contribute to Iraq’s Reconstruction)
Due to the ethnic fragmentation that makes up Iraq, I have to agree with the Federalist model that is being promoted by the US (one of the few times I agree with them). The creation of one or two Kurdish states within a federal Iraq as well as an equal representative upper house for the Federal Gov’t would hopefully ensure that Iraqi voices are heard in the new Iraq.
BTW did anyone see Pilger on Lateline last night? Very interesting, a little warped, but i see where he is coming from.
“the Americans had already achieved their objective of getting rid of the Taliban”
At that time, Dave, they may have, or so it seemed. Last night Phillip Adams interviewed Ahmin Rashid. The summary of the program reads as follows:
“…according to Ahmed Rashid, terror is alive and well and living in the south of Afghanistan. The Taliban has regrouped in a big way and the warlords, until recently supported by the United States, are running most of the country. In fact, Afghanistan’s President is most often referred to these days as the “Mayor of Kabul”, a reflection on the extent of his influence in his own country.
“The truth is Afghanistan is in a terrible mess. Attacks on aid workers have risen from one a month to one, or even two a day. The United Nations has deemed more than half of the country’s provinces too dangerous for its aid workers and since August last year, the Taliban has killed over 400 Afghans and 4 U.S. soldiers.”
It seems the Americans, in pursuit of a quick fix have begun to support the warlords again, deeming this the best way of establishing the order necessary for elections.
Rashid also spoke of the “talibanisation” of Pakistan.
What a crock of stimpy!
Why are the yanks still there? They should get out and take all their carpetbagging mates like Chalabi with them. If they are fair dinkum about wanting a “democratic and free” Iraq then they and their miniscule coalition of the willing should leave now. Let the Iraqis look after themselves.
If they are still there in a year then it’s obvious they invaded to run the place.
I agree with Prof Quiggin. The money saved on Iraq could have been reallocated by we Yanks to, say, malaria or clean water supply in Africa, saving many lives and improving global welfare. The gains therefrom would — yes, I know, I am guessing — have exceeded the gains to the Iraqis from their current freedom. The statement that we got rid of the Taliban is false, as stated in Brian’s post above. I tend not to think that Sbrub is hiding Bin Laden (today March 11) somewhere. Suppose he has and is waiting to break the news on October 15? It takes only one of his US captors to call CNN before Oct 15 and Bush’s re-election campaign is finished. The risk is too big.
i dont think thats a risk in a disciplined army. there are far greater national secrets than whether or not bin laden has been captured, held by many hundreds of people.
furthermore, someone telephoning cnn and saying i work at gitmo guarding bin laden would be so easy to discredit. they could deny it and how would the guy prove he was telling the truth? turn up on letterman with bin laden in tow? hardly.
finally, even if they didnt discredit the person, all they would have to do was to say they were keeping it secret for national security, and to track and capture other members of al qaeda, and to not cause an uprising by bin laden followers. then they could say the guy who called cnn compromised national security, is an embarassment to his uniform and country, and court marshall, and give him a dishonorary discharge.
so while our point seems reasonable, it is actually completely unrealistic.
having said that, i dont think they actually have bin laden, but that its odds on they will get him.
as regards to terrorism being alive and well in afghanistan, its certainly not as well as it was under the taliban. then it was an open training camp to the worlds disgruntled muslims. now they are hiding in caves, being bombed and targetted continually by special forces, with the americans paying locals to give them any information. they are on the run.
I disagree Ricardo… at the end of the day there is little else besides a utilitarian approach that can be used to judge such actions. Though it’s true that it’s difficult.
The war isn’t wrong because some people supported it for the wrong reasons. My dad hated Mugabe because he was black. That was the wrong reason… but that doesn’t mean he should now love Mugabe (my dad is no longer racist but still hates Mugabe).
As for how the American’s would have spent their money… it really doesn’t matter if it wasn’t on Afghanistan. If they simply gave it back to their citizens it probably would have saved more lives! But more to the point… if the war is being based on ‘humanitarian’ reasons (now that all other reasons have disapeared), then all you need to show is that better alternative humanitarian programs were available. Or you can argue (like me) that the government doesn’t have a role in providing foreign aid fullstop.
Iraq: Interim Basic Law
Many continue to see the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq as simply consisting of Saddam Hussein’s remnants. That