What happens when America doesnt get it right

[quadraphonics]

Something like a fifth of Iraq's population has left their homes - many (some count millions) have left the country. Nothing like that has happened in Iran.

Tell that to the (some count) millions of Iranians that have fled the Islamic Revolution, and have yet to return.

The US has, over the past 12 years of intervention, created a real mess in Iraq.

Indeed, as did Saddam over the previous decades. Meanwhile, Iran seems unambiguously worse off today than it was back when the US was still intervening in their affairs. For example, it's easy to find examples of people in Iran suffering similar or worse fates as Muntadar al-Zaidi. Atefah Sahaaleh, to name just one.

Of course, that kind of stuff is pretty much par for the course for countries in that region, so it's hard to conclude much about the United States from it. It's just prejudicial fodder for the propaganda mill, when it comes to this thread.

Iran is an interesting test case, though, since the US interventions there began in WWII and continued into the modern era, and so it bridges your two categories. And, indeed, the character and substance of said interventions seems to have taken a turn for the worse after the WWII era.

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile, Iran seems unambiguously worse off today than it was back when the US was still intervening in their affairs

? The US has been sanctioning, blockading, arming enemies and instigating major war, sponsoring internal terrorism, and so forth, to great and serious effect, continuously since the Revolution. There has been no cessation of US involvement in Iranian governance.

Tell that to the (some count) millions of Iranians that have fled the Islamic Revolution, and have yet to return.

The largest counts of refugees from Iran since the Revolution are (say from here http://www.migrationinformation.com/Profiles/display.cfm?id=424 )

1) only somewhat greater than the emigration population before the Revolution, in the low hundred thousands

2) dominated not by destitute and desperate victims of chaos, but by professionals and elites and various minority groups acting from prudence and bringing resources with them.

That contrasts with the count of refugees into Iran, which are officially and securely in the millions, are composed of the desperate, and are fleeing the consequences of US involvements in neighboring countries.

So Iran makes a poor argument for the benefits of US involvement. Instead, it seems to be a quite sharp illustration of the costs of post-WWII US involvement in a country's governance, as borne not only by its direct victims but by neighboring states.

 

[quadraphonics]

? The US has been sanctioning, blockading, arming enemies and instigating major war, sponsoring internal terrorism, and so forth, to great and serious effect, continuously since the Revolution. There has been no cessation of US involvement in Iranian governance.

I thought we were talking about "intervention," which I understood to mean "directly determining the nature and identity of a state's goverance," but now I see that you've introduced the category of "involvement" which I take to mean "exerting political influence."

Examining the latter category, we would have to note that there are not any countries that the US is not "involved" in, and so not much to talk about.

Now would be a good time to pick a term, and definition, that you like.

1) only somewhat greater than the emigration population before the Revolution, in the low hundred thousands

If US "involvement" did not, for the purposes of this argument, substantially change before and after the revolution, then why would we be interested in comparing refugee flows before and after the revolution?

Moreover, there are other factors than emmigration flows that one might use to assess the quality of life/freedom of conscience/whatever in Iran. It would be good to at least mention one of them (or, perhaps, respond to one I already mentioned) before trying to sell me on your conclusions.

2) dominated not by destitute and desperate victims of chaos, but by professionals and elites and various minority groups acting from prudence and bringing resources with them.

Is their exile any less painful for their material fortune? And since when is being a victim of chaos necessarily worse than being a victim of a repressive totalitarian state? And shall I point out the "prudence" of the Iraqi refugees, who presumably have avoided violent death by fleeing? More importantly, Iran is a vastly wealthier nation than Iraq (let alone, say, Afghanistan) in the first place, so I don't see what relevance this comparison holds, without at least some attempt to equalize for these differences.

 

[iceaura]

I thought we were talking about "intervention," which I understood to mean "directly determining the nature and identity of a state's goverance,"

Your phrase was "intervening in their affairs".

I regard economic sanctions and blockades, financing and arming of enemies and support of aggressive warfare by them, sponsoring of internal terrorism and external assault aimed at destabilizing the government, etc, as "intervening in their affairs".

The line at which "intervention" ends and "involvement" begins, if it is not drawn merely at clear success in the goals of involvement, seems vague. But we want to consider the influence of failed attempts at "directly determining the nature and identity of the state's governance", don't we?

To contrast with places and times in which the US is involved in more innocent ways, as related to the thread topic, I mean. Presumably, the US can get it wrong in a failed attempt at intervention - an "involvement" such as has been continual with regard to Iran since the Revolution - and getting it wrong is the topic.

If US "involvement" did not, for the purposes of this argument, substantially change before and after the revolution, then why would we be interested in comparing refugee flows before and after the revolution?

Did somebody claim it didn't change? I am merely picking off the idea that comparing Iran before and after the Revolution is comparing a State being seriously messed with by the US with the same one not being seriously messed with by the US. We could use a comparison like that, but Iran doesn't work. One could even argue that US interventions there have been worse in their effects, since the Revolution.

Moreover, there are other factors than emmigration flows that one might use to assess the quality of life/freedom of conscience/whatever in Iran.

True, but it's still an interesting factor to look at. US interventions have generate massive refugee flows in several places since WWII - and not generally toward them.

Is their exile any less painful for their material fortune?

Yes. And it is more of their choosing - such as the destination.

And since when is being a victim of chaos necessarily worse than being a victim of a repressive totalitarian state?

I'm sure there are examples both ways. One might ask the refugees who have fled into Iran by the millions. If that is your example of a repressive totalitarian state.

 

[quadraphonics]

Your phrase was "intervening in their affairs".

Fair enough.

One could even argue that US interventions there have been worse in their effects, since the Revolution.

Not since the Revolution so much as since the hostage crisis. Since then, certainly, they have been worse in their intent, so we would expect such an outcome. Before that, a strong, stable Iran was considered a crucial pillar of US Middle East Policy.

So, yeah, you can probably write off a lot of the material damage Iran has suffered under US payback.

But what about the way the Revolution treats Iranians? If we're going to use a capital R here, the buck needs to stop in Tehran. And I've yet to meet an Iranian that thought the Revolution was an improvement in this regard.

If there's a lesson that US policy makers have drawn from the failure in Iran, it appears to be "better the devil you know, then to end up like Jimmy Carter."

True, but [refugee flows are] still an interesting factor to look at.

Indeed. But if we're going to compare refugee flows between different countries, we need to also correct for relevant differences between the countries, such as level of development, average household wealth, presence of a functioning government, etc.

Notably, Iran has been substantially wealthier than Iraq (and both wealthier than Afghanistan) throughout the period in question. So we would expect Iran to produce fewer, wealthier refugees than Iraq, supposing each nation were subjected to some comparable trauma. Likewise, we would expect refugees to flow from Iraq into Iran, but rarely vice-versa. And since the refugees in Iran are fleeing a functional, repressive state, unlike the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would expect further differences in the demographics of the refugee groups. Absent some method for correcting for all these factors, I don't see how we can draw strong conclusions from the available data.

Comparing Iran to itself before and after the Revolution is less problematic.

Yes. And it is more of their choosing - such as the destination.

I suppose what I should have asked was: is their exile any less telling of the state of affairs in their country for their material fortune?

One might ask the refugees who have fled into Iran by the millions. If that is your example of a repressive totalitarian state.

What I gather from them is that they'd rather leave than risk joining the tens of thousands of political prisoners the Revolution has disappeared into dungeons over the years (or at least be pushed around by corrupt thugs who tell them what to wear). It's not exactly the type of thing one brings up in polite company, but fortunately the expatriate community is indeed vast enough to produce substantial media on the topic, which will also allow those not fortunate enough to have Persian friends a chance to hear for themselves.

If you haven't read/seen Persepolis, that's probably a good place to start.

 

[iceaura]

One might ask the refugees who have fled into Iran by the millions. If that is your example of a repressive totalitarian state.
”
What I gather from them is that they'd rather leave than risk joining the tens of thousands of political prisoners the Revolution has disappeared into dungeons over the years

I was unclear, I think. That was into Iran. The great majority - Iran is a large net gainer of those fleeing home.

An unusual circumstance for a repressive, totalitarian state. But the common factor of US improvements by force, in the source countries, is perhaps part of the explanation?

But what about the way the Revolution treats Iranians? If we're going to use a capital R here, the buck needs to stop in Tehran. And I've yet to meet an Iranian that thought the Revolution was an improvement in this regard.

Agreed,with the proviso that the Iranians one meets in the West are not a random sample.

But more than one person has argued - independently of our argument here - that the buck for the regrettable Khomeini himself goes back to the White House, as an unintended consequence that should have been better predicted after Cuba. If the Iranians made a mistake, they were highly motivated to make it. And definitely White House actions have had a great effect on the way the Revolution has been treating the Iranians. The before and after picture in Iran seems at least as problematical as a broad overview or survey of refugees - where they come from, how many, where they go.

I suppose what I should have asked was: is their exile any less telling of the state of affairs in their country for their material fortune?

Possibly, yes. Compare the flight of the Mafia and the Plantation class from Cuba. And compare Cuba with Haiti, Haiti the beneficiary of US improvements throughout the 20th century, in the subsequent years.

 

[w1z4rd]

Come on, Vietnam's not so bad. I certainly wouldn't put them in anything close to the same category as North Korea or Somalia, either in terms of internal conditions (Vietname is on the UN Security Council, for pete's sake..), relations with the United States (Vietnam has a trade treaty with the US, hosts US Navy ships in her ports, and has been a diplomatic ally on issues such as Iran sanctions) or the effect of US actions.

Yeah sure.. Vietnam not so bad? Sure bud. Delusion works. ... It IS bad. Sure its better than it was, but its not as good as it could have being. I think you should read more blogs of people in Vietnam and how the government treats their basic human rights, and how the are censored. Sorry dude.. saying Vietnam is not so bad is like saying Russia or China are not so bad.

I have noticed human labour in communist trade countries are cheap. So are the lives of the people there by the looks of things.

 

[swarm]

Somalia is a perfect example of what happens when you dont get it right.

You know Somalia had a nice stable government before America went in and screwed thing up to begin with.

Then we blew them off for years while things festered, until we discovered a strategic national interest and went in to "fix" things.

But "fixing" didn't mean democracy or helping the people, it just ment trying to grap what we wanted and it all blew up in our faces.

There actually are some places that support your hypothesis, but Somalia is actually an example of where we got it all wrong.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sorry for the delay. Not avoiding your post :]

I was unclear, I think. That was into Iran. The great majority - Iran is a large net gainer of those fleeing home.

Ah, I read too quickly.

Other than the (significant) relative differences in development between Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we run headlong into another primary difference between state repression and state failure: the functioning state is typically much more discriminatory in who it harms. So while I have no doubt that a great many people prefer refuge in Iran to their alternatives in neighboring states, I also have to wonder if the people in the Ayatollah's dungeons wouldn't, for their part, prefer to take their chances in a failed state.

An unusual circumstance for a repressive, totalitarian state.

Maybe by contemporary standards. But then, there are a lot of unusual circumstances in the region in question, no?

But the common factor of US improvements by force, in the source countries, is perhaps part of the explanation?

Yes, and also the common factor of (actual or incipient) state failure that precipitated US intervention in the first place. In Iran the latter factor was pretty distant (WWII), but I can't say the same about Iraq or Afghanistan.

And it's not like Iran's policy towards Iraq from, say, 2003 until, say, 2006 wasn't designed to undermine the Iraqi state and create lots of refugees (not to mention casualties).

Agreed,with the proviso that the Iranians one meets in the West are not a random sample.

Indeed, they represent the demographic group that is most capable and motivated to leave. In repressive states, a key target for repression is the civil society, which represents the nation's capacity for democratic control of the state (and so, ultimately, all legitimacy). Civil society, of course, happens to have a large overlap with the more fortunate demographics. For which we can be thankful: it actually costs a lot more to escape a repressive state than a failed state (at least if you are the type of person that would be a target for repression, and have a family).

Refugees from other countries, on the other hand, rank low on the list of targets for a repressive state, and may even be useful for propaganda purposes, for a while anyway. Didn't they forcefully repatriate some 6-figure number of Afghan refugees in the past year or so?

But more than one person has argued - independently of our argument here - that the buck for the regrettable Khomeini himself goes back to the White House, as an unintended consequence that should have been better predicted after Cuba.

I've always thought it was clear that US policy on Iran was off-track with the whole Moussadeq coup-de-tat. Which roughly coincides with the very beginnings of the Cuban Revolution, IIRC? So, I'd say that "predicted" is putting it a bit mildly, unless you're referring to something else by "Cuba." :]

If the Iranians made a mistake, they were highly motivated to make it.

The mistake the Iranians made, if there was one, was the classic one: allowing a small, fanatical faction to sieze power in a Revolution. And, indeed, the political forces that favor such an outcome are highly motivating, to say the least (hence, "the classic").

Had they managed to come out of the deal with a government that was both more representative and less repressive than the Shah (and maybe siezed the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do so and retain decent-or-better relations with the US, courtesy of limp-wrist Jimmy Carter and Iran-Contra Ronald Reagan), then it would all have been worth it. Probably everyone would have come out ahead.

They might still make it. But at least the United States gets to host Iran's best and brightest in the meantime.

And definitely White House actions have had a great effect on the way the Revolution has been treating the Iranians. The before and after picture in Iran seems at least as problematical as a broad overview or survey of refugees - where they come from, how many, where they go.

I never said it was without its own problems, but the idea is to judge the Revolution on its own terms. The US was supporting the Shah, a forcefully installed dictator who employed political and social repression, including torture and murder, to remain in power. Seems unjust enough, and the White House at the time even seemed sympathetic to that fact (which is a rarity). But the result is only marginally more representative, and even worse on the repression, torture and murder counts. It's not clear to me how that is to be attributed to the United States, at least in a first-order way. The brutalizing effect of mass conscription for the Iran-Iraq war?

 

[Challenger78]

Did someone miss all those countries in Latin America who suffer now because of U.S. "aid" ?

 

[iceaura]

So, I'd say that "predicted" is putting it a bit mildly, unless you're referring to something else by "Cuba."

The US had time, after Castro, to modify relations with the Shah and Iran.

Mistaking an era of long-deserved downfall for dictators as being an era of virulent upwelling for Communism may have a lot to do with America getting it wrong - depending on whose mistake we're talking about (the cynics in the halls of power were making other mistakes, probably).

But we seem to have reached a natural pause.

Did someone miss all those countries in Latin America who suffer now because of U.S. "aid" ?

Might be time to return to that. Do you regard that as America getting it wrong or America getting it right ?

 

[Challenger78]

Might be time to return to that. Do you regard that as America getting it wrong or America getting it right ?

I was responding to the statement in the OP, that said

I know a lot of people here just love to hate America... and GW Bush didnt help the whole situation. I dont care if America did it to grab resources, the fact of the matter is... generally countries with US and UN support are better off without it... and if you screw up your chance for that aid... then you are just another mob loving Somalian.

I'm pointing out the fact that even with US support, Latin America is worse of with it than without. U.N. Is a different story.

To be relative, It depends, right for whom ?

Certainly, It was right for your average citizen, as long as he didn't ask where all the cheap resources were coming from.

Morally, and in this context, America got it wrong. They put millions of people into poverty and kept them there. The fact is, most citizens don't know, or don't want to know. But in the end, we all lose, when corporations get countries hooked on foreign aid, by accepting loans, then paying them back forever, and also giving up valuable resources, political capital, and the welfare of their people.

 

[John99]

Morally, and in this context, America got it wrong. They put millions of people into poverty and kept them there. The fact is, most citizens don't know, or don't want to know. But in the end, we all lose, when corporations get countries hooked on foreign aid, by accepting loans, then paying them back forever, and also giving up valuable resources, political capital, and the welfare of their people.

Anything specific?

You live in Australia, you use resources along with every other industrialized nation.

 

[Challenger78]

Anything specific?

You live in Australia, you use resources along with every other industrialized nation.

Yes, Guilty as charged.
Since I know about it, I try to minimize the resources I use.
I know that changing everything to make it fair and balanced is not going to happen overnight.
I'm still trying to figure out what else I can do, besides telling people about it.
Because most people are just apathetic.

 

[John99]

I thought you were giving the same speech that dictators give to the unwashed masses while they enjoy the best things life has to offer.

 

[Challenger78]

I thought you were giving the same speech that dictators give to the unwashed masses while they enjoy the best things life has to offer.

What, Hypocrisy?, Entirely possible, If I were a dictator, and If I was enjoying the best thing life has to offer.

My point is, We could still enjoy our living standards without screwing things over for millions of others.

 

[John99]

We could still enjoy our living standards without screwing things over for millions of others.

of course.