(Editor's note: Dr. Kramer first posted this prescient article on Horsefeathers, the online site he hosts with fellow psychiatrist Dr. Steven Rittenberg, on April 2, 2003, about a week before President Bush declared major military action in Iraq was over.)
Just when we thought all the foreign-policy nonsense had been stuffed back in the bag, this thing pops out. Apparently, there is no end to the worldly mischief created by the tireless Imps of Idealism and Morality. They never rest, they never sleep. We must always be on the alert for their next noble plan, their latest high-minded proposal.
Somehow in the months-long struggle that the Bush government has been carrying on with Old Europe over how to deal with the Iraqis, some of the Administration's sound and realistic policies have come to be corrupted by the high ideals and chimeric visions of the past. A form of Utopianism is on the loose, a neo-Wilsonian urge to make the world safe for democracy again.
Early in the formation of Bush's Iraq policy, the aim was simple and militarily achievable: a "regime change." Then came "liberation of the Iraqi people," and, finally, "the ultimate goal of regime change is liberal democracy." It does not require the mind of a policy wonk to see that the idea of "liberating" the Iraqi people and transforming them into liberal democrats is a way of sugar coating the naked aggression that is implied in getting rid of the dangerous threat of Saddam. It represents a fear of our own power and of the assertion of our appropriate role of leadership in the world of nation states. Our enemies and rivals call this "unilateralism" or "imperialism."
Like a guilt-ridden, frightened grownup who is afraid to assume his rightful responsibility lest his parents -- old Europe -- get angry with him and withdraw their affection and esteem, we make up rationalizations and fantasies that fly in the face of facts and history. So we have to tell ourselves and the hand-wringing appeasers of Europe that the Iraqis are waiting for us to liberate them, that they will dance in the streets when we arrive, that they are lining up to buy copies of the "Federalist Papers."
Even now, after barely two weeks of war, the chimerical idea that the Iraqis are longing to breathe the free air of democracy is beginning to dissolve. The reports piling in, the pictures on our TV screen, are beginning to reveal a different pattern. It is clear that the non-Arab population in the north -- the Kurds and their leaders -- are our allies. At least until the war is over. They want Saddam out as much as we do, perhaps more, and they are willing to fight with us to achieve this common aim. And perhaps some but not all of the Shi'ites in the south are waiting to be freed from Saddam.
But everything else we see and hear suggests that a significant number of Iraqis do not feel oppressed by Saddam, and regard him as their rightful leader. There seems also to be a significant number of Iraqis who are politically unsophisticated and whose children are hungry and who would gladly kiss anyone's hand that will feed them -- George Bush, Saddam Hussein, or Sean Penn. The only Iraqi who appeared unambiguously anti-Saddam was the little chap on the first or second day of the ground invasion who hammered away at Saddam's poster image with his shoe as he grinned for the camera and danced an obsequious little dance in hope of a little baksheesh. We can't seem to understand why there is still so much resistance to the fulfillment of our dream -- the easy toppling of this evil regime.
The images suggest an alternative view of the situation there. Perhaps there is no large unambivalent Iraqi populace waiting to be freed and turned into liberal democrats. Perhaps this number has been greatly exaggerated by the gurus and is merely wishful thinking in order to fit the rationalization that Iraqis are starving for democracy as well as food.
Most opponents of the idea of building a democratic nation in Iraq have also opposed the war to depose and replace Saddam. This writer does not oppose the war to rid the world of Saddam but only the plan to radically rebuild a nation in our own image that may not want to be changed. There are sound psychological and historical reasons for our view that democratizing Iraq is a fool's errand.
As some of our readers may know, Steven Rittenberg and I have been practicing and teaching psychiatry and psychoanalysis for a combined total of 75 years. We may not know a whole lot about many things, but about baseball and hearts and minds, between us, we know a thing or two. And I can tell you that it's very, very hard to change hearts and minds. You can change behavior easily enough -- all you have to do is put a pistol to somebody's head and tell them to do what you want, and the chances are they will do it. But even with people who are very intelligent and highly motivated to change, it is extremely difficult to change a person's basic attitudes.
What does all this have to do with post-war Iraq? Well, nation-building, bringing liberal democracy to Iraq, requires changing the attitudes of millions of individuals, most of whom are barely literate, unworldly, uninformed --
[(Continued on p.9)]
Outpost - 8 - May 2004