The modern realist might well regard Nicolo Machiavelli as his patron saint. On the surface of things, it's easy to see why. In "The Prince," Machiavelli writes that a leader must be cruel, unmerciful and violent in order to maintain control over his principalities and newly conquered lands. However, Machiavelli is careful to point out the specific ways in which a prince must use these devices in order to succeed. He states that "...it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge." Taken out of context, it's easy to see how a realist or neo-con might use Machiavelli's words to justify the American-led invasion of Iraq. However, any realists or neo-con who quotes Machiavelli in the context of supporting the war on Iraq has either not read Machiavelli's "The Prince," or has not understood it. More on the flip.
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, they knew they were invading an oppressed people. Also, they knew they were invading a people who had strong religious convictions. Machiavelli would have cited both of these factors as advantages in the invading coalition's favor. However, I think he would have disapproved of some of the coalition's actions once the invasion was underway. The coalition has heavily relied upon "contract employees" to fulfill its mission. While many of these employees provide engineering and other civilian services, many more of them are providing military-style security services. In other words, they are modern day mercenaries. In addition, the coalition forces have worked hard to disarm the people of Iraq. They have engaged in large-scale, indiscriminate round-ups of citizens, and there is evidence that these citizens have been tortured, though there is little evidence that this torture has yielded any useful information by its perpetrators. All of these actions are in opposition to what Machiavelli would have called the good use of cruelty.
Primary to Machiavelli's instructions to the prince pertaining to the building of armies is that the army must not be made up of mercenaries. Unfortunately, BushCo has determined that "contractors" should indeed make up a substantial portion of the ground forces in Iraq. Machiavelli argues that mercenary forces are beholden to a paycheck, and therefore are not loyal to the state. In Machiavelli's view, loyalty to the state (and therefore to the prince) is essential to a successful leader and a successful invasion. Furthermore, he argues that mercenary soldiers will either betray their leader in times of trouble, or, worse, will betray their leader through incompetence. He argues that, at least with citizen armies, a leader is able to replace those who are incompetent, and, of one should distinguish himself from the others through his own prowess, bind that soldier through the laws of his homeland.
But let's look at the very use of coalition forces. In modern times, this is seen as a positive development. A coalition of forces from many countries confirms that you have the will of the world on your side. However, Machiavelli warns of this as well. He believes that each state will act in its own best interests (indeed, the core tenet of realism) and that armies which are not fully under your command may eventually either desert you or turn on you. (What about Poland, anyway?) Machiavelli is clear that coalition forces, or auxiliary forces, are to be taken on at your own peril.
If a state is conquered which lived under its own laws, Machiavelli prescribes three remedies in order to retain the state. The first is to decimate the state entirely. The second is for the conqueror to live there in person. The third is to allow the state to continue under its own rules, but to have them pay taxes to the conqueror, while instilling a government and aristocracy which is loyal to the new ruler. Of these three options, the coalition appears to have chosen the third. However, the coalition's attempts to install a "democracy" in Iraq have largely been failures. Ahmed Chalabi embarrassed the coalition when reports surfaced that much of the intelligence he gave the U.S. had been falsified. In the presidential election held in January, the interim Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi failed to win the favor of his countrymen and won the fewest votes of any party in the election. In addition, the election was widely contested and boycotted by those Muslims and Kurds who felt that the polling places and candidates had been selected with an eye toward offering only those choices which would be friendly to the pro-capitalist, pro-democracy coalition. As such, the elections lacked legitimacy through much of Iraq and the Middle East.
Widespread journalism and the insatiable appetite of the Western world for new information out of Iraq have proven that eventually, information will reach the masses. Because of this, the Western world itself is skeptical of the intentions of the coalition, and that, paired with the lack of voter participation in the January election has created an atmosphere where the winner of the election has little legitimate claim over his land and is ripe to be overthrown at the first convenience of his subjects. Machiavelli warns of this in the second chapter of "The Prince." He states that "...the occupier has only to have a minor setback, and the original ruler will bet back to power." The prevalence of journalists and 21st century media can make life as a ruler much more difficult than it was in the time of the Medici. Surely it was far easier to conquer a people when you had the ability to control every source of news and information. Today, with the advent of the internet, cameras contained within wireless telephones and digitalization itself, a ruler must constantly be aware of the watchful gaze of others when making judicious use of cruelty.
The American-led coalition invaded Iraq, took prisoners, and has been an occupying force for a little under two years. In that time, there have been scandals involving the torture of prisoners, the wholesale bombing of villages and towns where insurgents were suspected to be in hiding, and the desecration of the bodies of dead Iraqi men, women and children. Machiavelli discusses such tactics in the story of Agathocles. He states clearly that the indiscriminate use of violence to control one's subjects is neither fortunate nor virtuous, yet they can be used to accomplish a goal. While not honorable, Machiavelli considered Agathocles' tactics to be "cruelty well used." When using such tactics, as Agathocles did, it is important to be done "at a stroke, in order to secure one's power, and then are not repeated," (p. 25). Such devices, over time, lead to a lessening of bloodshed, not an increase. However, the coalition has seen an increase in deaths, both military and civilian, since the cessation of active warfare. Machiavelli warns that "those who abuse [cruelty] cannot hope to retain power indefinitely."
Through the example of Agathocles and Oliverotto of Fermo, Machiavelli illustrates the wisdom of knowing how to use cruelty, and when to use it. Machiavelli advises that conquering rulers use the sword swiftly, and all at once, otherwise he "...has to hold a bloody knife in his hand all the time. He can never rely on his subjects as they can never trust him, for he is always making new attacks on them." This appears to be exactly where the coalition has floundered, as they still have a large number of military personnel on the ground. Each day finds new attacks by the insurgents, and therefore, the military and the mercenaries are forced to fight fresh battles daily. This has added to an overall feeling of mistrust by the Iraqi people of their so-called liberators.
Finally, the coalition leaders seem to have forgotten one of Machiavelli's most important lessons. While he advises that a leader must learn "how not to be good," he also warns that a leader must at times be generous, loved, and praised. A parsimonious ruler will seldom have cause to raise taxes, as he is living within his means. While at first, the citizenry might resent the apparent miserliness of the ruler, eventually they will come to see him as good, as he is not raising taxes on everyone to support his lavish expenditures. In stark contrast to this advice stands the action of the coalition leaders. Under the guise of generosity, they have allowed the Iraqi people to sell their own oil in order to pay for the reconstruction costs associated with rebuilding their country. Ironically, the country's infrastructure would not be in such dire need of repair were it not for the invasion of the coalition. In addition, the coalition has determined which contractors are eligible for the rebuilding. These contractors have, as a rule, been firms which come from the coalition's home countries. Thus, Iraqi oil is serving to enrich the corporations of the coalition, and not the Iraqi people.
While Machiavelli did not have to be concerned with world opinion, I believe he would have made clever use of it. Had the coalition been better prepared for the insurgents, they would have been able to withstand the world's outrage at the bloodiness necessary to eliminate them all of the insurgents at once. Also, the world seems to have a short, short memory. Had the coalition fought a month's worth of bloody battles, with none to follow, the world might have quickly forgotten their initial disdain, and instead would have praised the coalition for ousting a brutal dictator, and then allowing the Iraqi people to live in peace. However, as it stands, the coalition continues to hold the bloody sword, and people the world over are questioning the coalition's ability to achieve its stated goals of peace and freedom for all Iraqis. Ultimately, the leaders of the coalition have much to learn from Machiavelli, and would have done well to heed his lessons prior to battle. As it stands, they have been left to look like bumbling fools, and not the mighty leaders they think themselves to be.