Victor Davis Hanson writes about Iraq's bounty and it strikes me that the nation could one day be a California of the Middle East (in the positive sense):
Iraq is not a poor country. Flying over the Tigris-Euphrates valley (I speak now a farmer) is unlike anything in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The soil is rich, the water plentiful and the dry climate perfect for intensive agriculture. That the country in theory within a year or two could pump well over three million barrels of petroleum a day, gives some indication of just how badly Iraq has been run the last forty years to screw up such natural bounty of a country—the Baathist-terror state, the attack on Iran, the massacres of Kurdish and Shiite innocents, the 1991 Gulf War, the no-fly zones and UN embargo, et al.
If we civilian Americans don't lose our nerve I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq in 2050 as wealthy, vibrant, and friendly as modern Japan.
So what part of Iraq would be the Castro District?
What do you mean by "if we civilian Americans don't lose our nerve"?
As a civilian American, I'd rather my sacrifice be in the form of tax dollars than in active duty, but since the war has been a terrible waste of money and I am still recovering from this year's income tax bill, I'd rather keep that money in my pocket, so I can give to causes I actually believe in and which operate much more frugally. Civilians who think Iraq will work out beautifully should invest in Iraq through the private sector.
"Civilians who think Iraq will work out beautifully should invest in Iraq through the private sector."
Why stop there apply it to social security, medical care, & education!
mpayne: Like the Pirate said, it would be cool if we could all divert our taxes to the government spending programs of our choice. I bet the military would get plenty of money!
You should take a longer-term investment horizon. Reforming the Islamofascist world is critical for the survival of Western Civilization, and WC has made us all very wealthy by historical standards.
Reforming the Islamofascist world? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Which countries will be involved? How much is it going to cost? (What will Americans be willing to stake?) How long will it take and how long will it realistically last? Will it require the conversion of a billion people? There needs to be some discussion of what is a realistic goal.
I agree with both MW and the Pirate, the billions spent in Iraq is just welfare for Iraqis and defense contractors.
mpayne: We're trying to bring them into Western Civilization, basically. It will cost a lot, but pay back even more in the long run. It will take a couple of generations, and probably last as long as the rest of Western Civ does. It will either require a billion people to convert from Islam, or more likely an "Islamic reformation" that allows Islam to peacefully and profitably coexist with the rest of us.
Is it realistic? I think so, but there's no other real choice. Whether we like it or not we're in a cultural war, and I don't want to be on the losing end.
It seems to me that the Iraqis, like any society grown dependent on welfare, are not going to learn to help themselves until they hit rock bottom and realize it's up to them. Currently they're too preoccupied getting paid to set up IED attacks on US soldiers to have a concept of who their enemy is. They don't have a chance to construct and protect their own country because the US military is doing all the thinking for them. When the US leaves, yes it will be difficult for them since they won't be used to it, but for their own sake, they will deal. If Iran has intentions, the US presence only postpones them (and not even, really).
The best way to bring them into Western civilization is to trade with them. Not even for all their fundamentalism are they immune to wanting control over their own financial futures and stability for their families. Look further East: trade was the single most democratizing force for China.
mpayne: I'm not sure that trade alone is a democratizing force. It pushes tyrannies towards capitalism, but capitalism does not necessitate democracy. From what I've seen of China, their economy is becoming more free but there's no real move towards democracy at all. Trade is a great tool for building wealth, and a wealth population may eventually put tyrants into a precarious position, but I can't think of any examples of that happening yet. In the post-Soviet states we see democracy first, followed by capitalism shortly thereafter. China wants capitalism without political freedom, and so far they're getting it.
As for Iraq, I'll point out that every report indicates that a turning point has been reached and Iraqis are rejecting terror and working move closely with the Coalition. We're acting like training wheels now, but we'll back off gradually and let the Iraqis ride by themselves. It'll take time, because if they fall and skin their knees it'll make the world a lot harder place for us, too.