What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building

by Noah Feldman

Book Overview

What do we owe Iraq? America is up to its neck in nation building--but the public debate, focused on getting the troops home, devotes little attention to why we are building a new Iraqi nation, what success would look like, or what principles should guide us. What We Owe Iraq sets out to shift the terms of the debate, acknowledging that we are nation building to protect ourselves while demanding that we put the interests of the people being governed--whether...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0691121796
• ISBN13: 9780691121796
• Release Date: October 2004
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Length: 168 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Good book... title not precise

This is not a discussion of what we owe Iraq, which Feldman states is a decent functioning government, but an analysis of the the issues involved in getting there. The best parts, for me, were the examples from his experience such as the practical problems facing those who worked in the early occuption, his description of the Republican Palace, the meeting with the Lawyers Association. The heart of the book is an analysis of the issues involved in achieving the goal such as authority, occupation vs. trusteeship, paternalism, elections, legitimacy/perceived legitimacy, etc.

Do not compare Germany and Iraq ...

Condoleezza Rice always takes the concept of "Nation Building" with pleasure into her mouth and tries to explain with frown to the audience how important this task is. The author Noah Feldman is an expert for this concept -- and NATION BUILDING also has his development history: On the occasion of the 1st World War the United Nations formulated guidelines which were still whisked a little with the ideology of the colonial time and carried a little of the gesture of a patriarchal guardianship into themselves, though. After the second World War one lost something of this arrogance and put as an aim into the centre only, that a nation, political ethically lagging behind (at that time Germany), should be brought by the introduction of democracy to the global community standard. Cases like Kosovo or East Timor seemed to confirm the correctness of such a target. In the case Iraq an additional thinking effort must be done. While Condoleezza Rice still compares Germany 1945 with present Iraq a little school girlishly and assumes that everything has to be fixed in the time window of four years, the expert Noah Feldman is there already a little more skeptical. Compare the educational level, the religion dependence, the power of the different population groupings and the complete missing of national feelings of guilt: these different factors forbid the comparison Iraq/Germany actually. [Nevertheless the Washington administration-rhetoric continues to do so.] Noah Feldman seems to recognize the clear difference: Because the wave of terror-acts is not tearing off. Has there been this in Germany, that police stations were classified as collaborator collection places and regularly blown up into the air? Has there been this in Germany 1945, that permanently seeped over the national boundaries from the neighboring countries Christian sympathizers to Germany, which wanted to help to cast out the Americans? NO! The USA have completely underestimated the forming strength of Islamic solidarity and the connected high aggression level . Since the debacle was got going worldwide visibly now (perhaps justified a little recklessly and wrongly)?, the USA owes to the Iraqi people, not to leave the country till at least safety is established against assassinations - this is the NEW, what Feldman is saying. Unfortunately, the installation of a constitution suffices not at all (like 1945-1949 in Germany). The production of a civilian safety as an afterwards defined aim will take up substantially more time or is successful never -- and ends with an out throw of American know-all battalions as formerly in Vietnam. Noah Feldman does not mention this point, he likes to see a positive future, not the flashbacks of nightmare-views. Of course we all hope, there soon will shine the sun of peace and freedom in Iraq -- and the US will take a break, being a global ethic police ...

Legitimizing futile occupation

"A republic to keep, not anarchy or utopia" is the zest of this book. The author strives to rationalize the futility of U.S.'s involvement in a flawed war. He discerns similarities and differences between the chaos in Iraq and those of Germany, Japan, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Kosovo, East Timor, Algeria, Uganda, Ireland, Haiti, and Afghanistan. The book spans 130 pages of well-read and logically evolving description of the heuristic process of nation building. It falls into three chapters, plus an introduction and conclusion. The INTRODUCTION outlines the objectives of nation building by an occupying power, the relationship between the occupier and the occupied, in the era of democracy, and the mechanism of exit, through election and security safeguards to ensure durable and sovereign government that could maintain order and legitimacy. Chapter 1, NATION BUILDING: OBJECTIVES, compares the objective of nation building during the Cold War of thwarting the threat of "total destruction" through a "rational-actor model" of states (Germany, Japan, N. Korea) to the present involvement to restoring "civil order" through a "non-state violence actor model" (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, E. Timor, and Somalia). The absence of any rational model for the Iraq War that toppled a deterrable and strong government is considered a foreign policy blunder that created a failed state, threatening regional instability, with low odds of success of democracy without long, costly, and bloody US support. The author contends that ethics and morality have a role in International affairs. He cites the examples of Kosovo and E. Timor to prove that Internationalization does not impose ethical comfort, but our national believes that "ethnic cleansing" is immoral lent the needed support. Chapter 2, TRUSTEESHIP, PATERNALISM, AND SELF-INTEREST starts by the author's admission to the guilt of the U.S. of high-handed behavior that led to a "serious fix", the rash and mistaken disbanding of Iraqi army that created chaos, and the de-ba'thification order of Ambassador Bremer that alienated the middle class. With the absence of civil society, there is little hope to impose security. Hence comes the ethical obligation on the U.S. to produce order through monopolizing violence. The author confesses that we do not know what we are doing, we do not understand the complexities of the Iraqi society and politics, and we are woefully unprepared for external nation building. He then delves into the modern history of international law in order legitimize occupation, as follows. The Spanish War: The Spanish canonists rationalized governing the Indians of the new world through Europeans' "wardship" on their behalf, on the bases that the Indians possess polities, law, religion, and are reasonable men entitled to rule themselves. Before WWI: The Annex of the Hague Convention of 1907, restricts the authority of the occupying power to restore order, until cessation of hostilities,