Wallerstein on Iraq

Immanuel Wallerstein, the sociologist and principal thinker behind World Systems Theory (WST), has to call the war in Iraq a failure. What is significant is that WST theorists and writers think in larger historical and social influences. Not what is politically expedient today but how larger social, economic, and cultural trends culminate in the types of societies that we have today and will have in the future.


Does he look smarter than Bush? He is.

Wallerstein was the principal architect of modern WST and has argued as early as the 1970s that we cannot see the world simply or just as a reflection of two prevailing or conflicting tendencies, like say capitalist and communist. The world has too many shades of grey in its cultures, economies, and political institutions. Of course, Neocons like Bush jr and the foreign policy bunglers of today cannot even begin to understand the data and the long-range historical view of Wallerstein.

Jeane Kirkpatrick and the Reagan administration that followed the neoconservative principles that she espoused about the possibility of social change among dictatorships vs. communist countries has been proven entirely incorrect following the collapse of the Societ system. But the arrogance with which these neocons bi-polarize the world -- a process which we see culminating today with the disasterous war in Iraq and the perpetual war on terror (or global struggle against extremism). These policy makers for whom "heart" and "acting decisvely" matters more than intellect would have done well to try to understand the work of Wallerstein and his students.

Wallerstein's essay begins with a powerful statement:

It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."

Wallerstein's assesment of the various cultural (especially the very contentious religious factors)and economic elements that will make a war unwinnable are then examined:

In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems. One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust, there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of Islam.

The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations. Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of view.

Clearly, if the Bush administration had done its homework instead of just simply asserting "mushroom clouds," "they certainly have weapons of mass destruction," and "terrorists in America" during the rush to war, these so-called public servants would have examined the history, nature of Iraqi and middle eastern society, and the very dangerous consequences of giving the extremists in that region of the world active victimization that could be used to recruit and retain people who are willing to die for a cause. Regardless of whether the cause is just or not.

But of course, I believe -- as Wallerstein shows -- that the Bushies currently in office do not understand Kirkpatrick any more than they could hope to comprehend Wallerstein. But the problem is more than being dull-witted. They do not care. For whatever strange religious, bureaucratic, jingoistic, arrogant reason. They believe that like a god they can remake the world in their image. Of course, if they had read Wallerstein's analysis of the world economic and cultural system, they would know that is impossible.

I doubt anything could have persuaded them not to go to war. More's the pity.