Thinking about the John Agresto Lecture
It’s been a busy weekend for yours truly, but I’m finding some time to sit down and think through the John Agresto lecture that took place Thursday at Texas Tech’s International Cultural Center here in Lubbock. There were some real insights from a guy who didn’t sound too far “left of center” at all. Dr. Agresto, in charge of rebuilding Iraq’s higher education system, was part of the group of officials who reported directly to Paul Bremer, and the Bush Administration didn’t pick any big lefties for posts like that…
The most important point Agresto made was that “there is no democracy without some vision of human equality.” Equality does not imply sameness, but it does imply the same rights and a certain degree of connectedness. These implications are taken for granted in the United States today, but they are what make our democracy possible. Their absence in Iraq (and in various other nations around the world) is what makes democracy in Iraq a fool’s errand, at least for this generation.
The character of Iraqi spiritual life is the major culprit for this absence. Religious, rigid, tribal, and extremist — these all describe the nature of the violent insurgents in Iraq. Despite the character of some American Christian denominations, America has truly tamed one of the worst aspects of religion: the belief that certain humans are less than human, evil, able to be destroyed without guilt or hesitation. The Declaration of Independence — coming chronologically before our Constitution — states the rejection of “sub-humanity” plainer than any document in the history of mankind. Real human equality — the same idea of equality that sent firefighters and police up the stairs of the twin towers while so many were fleeing down the stairs — is the most necessary condition for a successful democracy. Patriotism implies that you want your neighbor to be as free and alive as you are. Iraq does not yet possess this idea of equality or patriotism; Sunni willingly kill or oppress Shia and vice versa.
There were some frightening statistics presented as well. For example, 400-600 professors in Iraq were killed by their students. — so much for the idea of questioning tradition or religious authority in the classroom.
Another strong point from Agresto was his definition of success in Iraq. We will be successful in Iraq when the Iraqi people do half of what we are now doing for them. We are not seeing the Iraqis, with the exception of Kurdish people, take the initiative in their own reconstruction, security, or governance. The Kurds have rebuilt their infrastructure to a great degree, including hotels, schools, and a secular government. No Americans have been killed by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. I imagine that those planners of the war thought that all of Iraq would be like Kurdistan in the North, but it’s turning out to be more like Basra in the South.
The war planners did not do their homework about American democracy, much less about the possibility of democracy in Iraq. If they did, they would understand that a nation must be ready to undertake the process of democracy before actually forming a democratic government.
Or worse, the war planners knew or strongly suspected that democracy wouldn’t work in Iraq, and they dragged us into war anyway because a stable democracy in Iraq was never their goal.
Share This
September 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Your point in the last paragraph is THE point. Agresto blew around a lot of idealism about democracy but we know that that only came up as about the fourth reason we were there. We know the real reason we went to Iraq. Agresto also didn’t approve of Iraq’s European type of university system, calling it too rigid. He seemed to prize more than anything else he did there managing to get a change in major for the sister of his translator. He is concerned for the Iraqi people who work with the Americans. He favors allowing all to immigrate to the U.S. He seemed to be very sure none of them would pose a security threat. I didn’t buy his book because I’d heard the story before. He had a role in another book–one I actually read–Imperial Life in the Emerald City, as a Bush crony appointed to a post over his head. Sort of the Brownie of higher education in Iraq.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I wasn’t at the talk, but his characterization seems slanted. It appears to portray fundamentalist Muslims as the predominant citizens of Iraq. I would venture that many Iraqis are not fundamentalist in their thinking (though the Iraqi middle and upper classes have fled) .It seems to me that when a society is torn apart and into shreds as the US occupation has done, the anger of the citizens drive them to extremes. When Iraqis were left without jobs while foriegn workers were imported in because they would do the job for less, rage is the result (currently still 50% unemployment). When American companies are contracted with instead of Iraqi companies, and Iraqi businesses are left high and dry, rage is the result. When the occupying force fails to get infrastructure going after four years, rage is the result. And if anybody there had been thinking about it, they could have expected the rage. Did the rage benifit them? Its a puzzle. But because the Iraqi people are enraged now, does not mean that they are naturally that way; they simply have some real good reason to be now.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Sue: You’re right. Establishing a democracy in Iraq was never a top reason for invading until the other reasons proved invalid. The talk was interesting to me because it showed one Bush crony’s process of realization that even that reason for invading is invalid.
Danna: Good points. I honestly have no idea if the anger of the Iraqi people is more cultural or more a rational response to circumstances. I suspect it’s some of both. What has always bothered me about this whole invasion is how it highlights American shortcomings here at home while no one does anything about them. We seem to work harder at giving Iraqis food, clothing, and shelter than we do for our own people. We seem to be more serious about universal health care and access to higher education for Iraqis than for Americans. Just a fraction of what we spend on Iraq could go toward curing so many social ills here in America.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Hmm.. I dont think that Americans, on the whole, are committed to provide food, clothing and shelter for Iraqis OR our fellow Americans. In Iraq, quite like in New Orleans, the whole reconstruction effort appears to be a sham, just a large pyramid scheme for the military industrial complex and a trickle down effect on Conservative contractors who got in on the scam. No one cares to rebuild anything. Its just how much money they can make before they get the hell out of dodge. It’s a big funnel for Bush-connected businesses to make quick cash and attempt to hold onto the oil of Iraq. Of course they desire no true stability in Iraq. What would a strong leader who has control of Iraq do? Step one would be to control his own country’s resources. Step two would be to say Thank you for your help, you can leave now. The United States CANNOT have that. For the PNAC/Neocon plan in the middle east to work, THERE CAN BE NO FULLY INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES. The plan calls for American bases, permanent ones, at strategic points along the Oil rich territories. It calls for American control of the Oil=- Which is borne out in the new oil contracts that the Iraqis are refusing to sign, which give EXXON MOBIL and CHEVRON and company control of the oil. 4,000 Americans died so that EXXON could control Iraq’s Oil? Hell, If we are going to steal It- AT LEAST LET US STEAL IT- Not give it to Exxon so they can overcharge Americans for it!!!! This is a complete farce for Americans, and it should be obvious if so many Americans could actually be bothered to concern themselves with the details. But it’s far worse for the people who we are supposed to be “Saving”.. 1 million estimated dead now, 3 million left the country. Those who are left are those either too poor to leave or with ties to local warlords or milking the contractors as the contractors milk the U.S. government. We have brought them a level of bloodshed, rape, travesty, and horror far beyond that of Saddam, the leader we helped put in charge of Iraq with our meddling in the first place.