Customer Reviews

Mugged by Reality: The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The author, Dr. John Agresto, is a self-described neoconservative who spent nine months working in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority to revitalize higher education. The title of this book has long been a popular headline - The Economist is using it this week (22 March 2007) to describe the situation in Iraq, and the Hoover Institution's Policy Review used the phrase in 1997 in an essay on the crime epidemic. Feminists and others have also claimed that they have been "mugged by reality," and it seems one of liberalism's frequent laments when confronting the wider, less liberal world. The title, while a recycled one, is accurate when considering Agresto's driving contention: "In this age, we are all, all of us, seduced by hope but mugged by reality. And the pre-eminent reality of the day is a religious fanaticism, self-assured, unafraid of death, unafraid of killing, medieval in its outlook yet armed with powerful modern weaponry, growing in its mass appeal and able to co-opt democratic forms and elections." Agresto's authority and experience qualify him to write this book, and despite his identification with neo-conservatism, this book is neither Right nor Left in any orthodox sense. There is plenty herein to upset assumptions on both sides of the aisle. His intellectual honesty is evident in that he has not claimed to have found the easy answers too many pundits rave about: he supported the war; he acknowledges it has gone badly; he does not attempt to justify mistakes with intentions. As he describes the cardinal error, it was "hope triumphant over rationality," and Iraq has become more a tragedy than a mistake.

Agresto is at his finest in making a credible connection between liberal education and liberal democracy, and the point is not a minor one. Democracy, or self-government, requires citizens capable of governing themselves, which they may acquire principally through liberal education. If democracy means only majority rule, Agresto, like others (Fareed Zakaria comes to mind), believes the consequences will be illiberal democracies with the potential for becoming the type of tyranny that was overthrown. Agresto details the difficulties of implementing liberal democracy in Iraq, such as the crippling effects of autocratic corruption and socialism, as well as the absence of anything like a liberal tradition in which to ground liberal democracy. Agresto is critical of the U.S. for its failure to secure Iraq after the invasion: porous borders, anarchic criminals, and looting not only made governing Iraq more difficult, but ensured that the Iraqi people would express a preference for security over liberty, and seek in religious fundamentalism what was unavailable through liberal education.

Incredibly, there have only been two professional reviews of the book: one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal review by Carter Malkasian was, I think, overly critical of Agresto's treatment of the average Iraqi character. Agresto's point about the Iraqi reluctance to take charge of their liberty is essentially that the people have been cowed and infantilized by tyranny and socialism, and are more afraid of the terrorists and the insurgents than Americans because they and their families are more susceptible to attack than are the Americans. Rajiv Chandrasekaran's piece in the Washington Post was startlingly revealing. Quoting a professor at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York, the professor said, "The politics of the occupation were so divisive, and the American academy felt so disempowered by the way things were happening, that when such political creatures like Agresto came asking for things, it was too difficult to put aside those politics." If the American academy felt `disempowered', can you imagine how the Iraqi students must have felt at not having textbooks, desks, or windows? Agresto's story is interesting because the reader witnesses all of the cheap political points that were being scored by American academics and international aid agencies, as well as the real-world consequences of this dastardly behavior on the ground in Iraq.

Despite containing so many prescient observations and reflections, there are problems with this book. It is generally poorly organized, and lacks focus. Too often Agresto tries to include an aside that runs long only to conclude with "this will be addressed in a future chapter." It could have been considerably tightened up, and preserved its greatest strength, which was the discussion about the relationship between liberal education and liberal democracy. Also, disappointing for a book coming from Encounter were the many editorial lapses. I won't bore the reader with these here, but if someone from Encounter happens to be reading this review, they may want to read through the following pages: 73, 75, 96, 106, 108, 125, 147, 149, 165, 168 - missing page number, 179, and 181. Finally, Agresto emphasizes repeatedly the import of culture throughout, only to say near the end that "the truth remains that blaming the culture is the coward's way out" (p.169). He is here referring to the American military's abuses at Abu Ghraib, so that it seems (though I cannot imagine Agresto actually believes this) that culture matters if we are talking about Iraq and Iraqis difficulty with democracy and liberalism, but that it's the "coward's way out" when we are talking about whether changes in American culture have had any pernicious effects on the character of the average military recruit.

Despite the fact that Agresto's book is often long on reflection, and short on explicit suggestions, it remains an important one. I believe it would appeal particularly to those involved at any level of education; and more broadly, to those Americans who are undecided, uncertain, or uneasy about the ongoing American involvement in Iraq.

I've read a few books recently which attempt to explain why our Iraq project has failed so badly. This book is the best of the bunch. It has extra credibility, at least to me, because Agresto initially believed in what the Administration was trying to do and willingly lent his expertise and service to help Iraq become a liberal democracy. From his small corner of the Iraq venture (higher education), he observed the shortsightedness and arrogance of the military, the CPA, and the deep thinkers back home, as well as the problems the Iraqi culture presented for the democracy project. I believe he has correctly seen the big picture from his year of experience and has expressed it very well. This book is much more than a series of anecdotes.

John Agresto's new book is the best book on Iraq. Whether you're uninformed about the Iraq or someone who has held a strong opinion about it for a long time, Agresto will offer you fresh, refreshing, and brutally honest insights into the Middle East, Iraq, and our psyche. The book is short but it's loaded with big ideas supported with first-hand anecdotes. Agresto's approach to the debate is unique in that it lacks the platitudes and banalities so common in our discourse. Agresto reaches uses events in Iraq and our policy there to build up profound conclusions not just about Iraq itself, but also human nature. This book should be included in the recipe for American foreign policy.

Agresto offers an unapologetic look at why we went into Iraq. Then, he details what went wrong. It is difficult to find such clarity, with no apparent ax to grind. Prior to reading this book, I was confident that we should stay. Now, I'm not so sure. Agresto's description of our many mistakes in Iraq was difficult for me to read. But, I knew that it was important to do so. The failure of Iraq is one that, as Agresto details, at its core is a failure of the Iraqis themselves. Having been liberated from tyranny by us, the Iraqis have failed to step up. Where we failed, it seems is, under the guise of multiculturalism, essentially failing to recognize the superiority of our own culture and systems. We cobbled together a political process, ignoring the virtues and merits of our own. We permitted al Sadr to roam free, even though he is a known murderer. We permitted a political system that divides based on sect and ethnicity, even though our is rooted in geography and forces ideological accommodation. We permitted looting and common crimes to go unpunished. We were too soft, for fear of being too much like Saddam. Agresto is critical of the military, but in fairness to them, the role of the military is to kill people and break things, not to rebuild civilizations for an ungrateful, cowardly and lazy populace.

MUGGED BY REALITY: THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF GOOD INTENTIONS comes from an author who spent more than nine months in Iraq, helping to rebuild its system of colleges and vocational schools. While it's a memoir of the time he spent in Iraq and his encounters with the people there, MUGGED BY REALITY is also a testimony to the successes and failures after liberation and the struggles to promote a democracy within a world occupied by fanatics. Any who would understand the culture and problems of the Middle East will want to read this - and any library collection considering itself comprehensive in Iraq culture and experience must have it.

The power of John Agresto's intellect comes across in this book, especially in the brief but clear discussion of citizenship and civil society. Agresto is a serious academic and thinker, who led one of the nation's top liberal arts colleges.

Unfortunately, the author seems unsure of how to handle himself overseas, in a bureaucracy, in dealings with foreigners, the military, etc. (you get the picture). In this slim volume, Agresto laments over and over about being blown off by junior U.S. government functionaries--seemingly an embarrassing admission of bureaucratic ineptitude, but serially prose-worthy for Agresto.

The author is also hopping mad that his $1.2 billion education mega-plan was not immediately funded and implemented during his brief stay in Iraq, showing perhaps less understanding of national level politics in the United States than one would expect from a political scientist. He's hopping mad that donor nations did not follow through on pledges to fund higher education in Iraq. Oh, and he's hopping mad, personally affronted even, that the problems of Iraq, decades in the making, did not yield to his energy and enthusiasm over a span of nine months, not including leave breaks. He's also hopping mad at the military. Perhaps some Colonel yelled at him in a meeting.

In the end, this book is less about higher education in Iraq, and more about the hopping mad author and his short stint as an innocent abroad.

I, like Mr. Agresto, believed that "liberating" Iraq from Saddam Hussein was in the best interest of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. As a neoconservative, I believed that the Cold War ethic of defending and exporting democracy was a moral cause; that every human being is born with an innate desire to live in freedom. Alas, I no longer believe this to be the case, primarily because this template did not/does not recognize the irreconcilable cultural differences between the West and the Muslim world.

"Mugged By Reality" is the latest in a string of books I've read over the last couple of years in an effort to better understand Islamic extremism in particular and Muslim culture in general. If President Bush had had the advantage of reading "Guests of the Ayatollah", "The Looming Tower", "America Alone", and "Infidel", for example, I beleive he would have better understood the depths of Islam's cultural disfunctions, and probably would have done things differently in 2003. These aforementioned works have led me to conclude that the Muslim world cannot be reformed (or liberated) from without, it's savior must come from within -- an Islamic Reformation led by an Islamic Martin Luther, if you will. Until then, we should avoid all but the most covert and defensive involvement with Middle East politics.

The saddest thing about the Iraq debacle is that we have expended so much American blood and treasure only to see that the "democracy" that has been birthed there is an Islamic one. As Agresto explains in heart-breaking detail in chapter 4, the Iraqi constitution, executive, legislative and judicial branches function less like our own and more like those of Iran's and Gaza's. That is to say that, yes, votes are cast democratically, but individual freedoms and laws are ultimately subservient to Islamic law (sharia).

As Mr. Agresto tells it, the reason this unfortunate and tragic result came about is due to the Bush Administration's reluctance to do what we did after liberating/defeating Japan and Germany in WWII: impose American-styled democratic values and laws. Why did Bush and Bremer not do this? It appears they were cowed, just as those on the left are, by a toxic combination of cultural relativism and fears of validating bogus European/UN charges of "imperialism". For this our brave soldiers have paid with their lives? Truly a tragedy, though a different one than the Left laments.

The one bright spot that illuminates Agresto's otherwise depressing tome is the success and prosperity that Kurdish Iraqis have enjoyed. Not surprisingly, this is because the Kurdish character is less intertwined with Islam and more comfortable with religious pluralism (Christians and Jews live freely among them).

What to do with Iraq now? I'm afraid our policy mistakes are already baked in the cake regardless of however we choose to disengage militarily. You can't unscramble an egg and you can't de-Islamify the Iraqi constitution and character. It is this reality that we must face.

It seems that many pundits and politicians visit Iraq only to add credibility to their pre-existing notions. It is a nice change to see someone who bases his views on reality rather filters facts to fit his views.

If you truly want to understand the situation in Iraq, you must read this book.

One of the most frightening things about today's world is that nobody ever changes their mind about anything. If discourse is at all meaningful people should occasionally be convinced that they were wrong but that happens very rarely, if ever. It makes one wonder what is the point of reading or discussing things if you always end up where you started.
Agresto comes close enough to merit the 5 stars.
He doesn't quite admit that he was wrong. He writes: "Nevertheless, given all this, forgive me if I am hesitant to join in the chorus of commentators, usually on the left, who now find it easy to call our venture in Iraq a "mistake." If "mistake" implies mistaking our goals, or having irresponsible intentions, then the war was not a mistake. But if mistake implies an inability fully to understand not the ends but the means, if it implies not knowing exactly what to do, when to do it, or even how to do it, then mistakes were made aplenty. Good intentions do not ensure success, and nice guys often do finish last. In that sense, looking at our failures of execution rather than of aim, I now have no hesitation in stating that we should not have undertaken the war." (p.11)
So we were not wrong in devastating Iraq because our hearts were pure -- we just did it wrong. OK -- that is at least a partial admission.

I have other quarrels with him. He writes: "liberal democratic nations might and often do wage war against their ideological enemies--liberal democracies have fought both hot and cold wars with Fascist and Communist states, for example--they rarely if ever wage war against each other. No matter how furious we Americans might get with France or Germany, invading a democratic Germany or bombing France is simply beyond anything we could ever imagine." How does he explain WWI when the liberal democratic nations France, England and the United States ganged up on an even more liberal and Democratic Germany.
On Page 20 he writes: "For a long time after 9/11, the news journals, in referring to the terrorists, seemed fixated on the question "Why do they hate us?" It's a bit of an odd question, for it seems to suggest that the reason for the hatred is somehow our doing--that we are hated because of something wrong about us, or wrong that we have done. It's also an odd question since I cannot envision others who have been attacked--as we were in 2001--naturally asking that question. (Do American Indians ask it? Do Jews ask it about Nazis? Do African-Americans ask it about the KKK? I tend to doubt it.) But there may be a value in answering the question as posed. Perhaps we are hated because of who we are--as well as because of who they are." Would he have written this if he were an American Indian, or an African American or an Iranian who witnessed the mistaken shooting down of an Iranian air liner that was not even greeted with an Oops, sorry, or an Iraqi whose home was bombed by a display of shock and awe (i.e. terror) in the search for people who want to change the world by means of terror (i.e. shock and awe).
As you see I am very critical of this book -- but it is a clear and honest effort to explain the neo-conservative point of view. As far as I can see it is the only such effort and as such it deserves 5 stars.