Many of us have heard it. "If you break it, you bought it!" The little quip by Colin Powell--repeated by Huckabee in one of the Republican Debates. The only problem is that this little theory have a logical hole in it. Here, I wish to introduce some of the fallacy of the "Pottery Barn" theory and hope to encourage fuller discussion on this matter.
It is obvious that many of the Pro-occupation arguers are trying to inject notions of honor, integrity, or sympathy to shore up their cause. The problem with this is that much of the basis given by this group have several severe problems in their reasoning.
It is my hope that we may come to discuss the several reasonings for occupation of Iraq, and hope to reach a more conclusive strategem of dealing with it.
What is the "Pottery Barn" Theory?
I think many of you have heard it repeated many times. For the life of me, I do not know why so many well-established politicians keep falling back on it as a weapon of last resort. The "Pottery Barn" theory, as explained by Powell, just does not hold water. First--let us recap the main points of this theory, and then I will present several arguments exposing the problem of using the "Pottery Barn" theory to shore up the idea of staying in Iraq.
In no way do I exhaust all the problems with using this theory. In fact, I pose more questions than present answers. Finally, I try to draw a conclusion on the arguer of such a theory. In some ways, one could call these accusations bias and unjust. Yet, the actions of this administration versus the arguer of the theory do not coincide on the logical, albeit parochial, framework of what we should do with Iraq.
Basic Concept--Iraq as a "Pottery Barn"
Let us say that you broke an item in a store while shopping. One response is that you would take it to the manager and explain what happened. If you shopped at the "Pottery Barn," as I hear it, the rule of the store is "you broke it, you bought it" In many ways, Powell equated the nation of Iraq to the Pottery Barn and its government as the item we broke. Unfortunately, there is more to this little theory than meets the eye--especially since not all stores heed the pottery barn theory. The manager may call in the cops(or UN in our situation!) to charge you with misconduct and destruction of property, depending on what you broke and how much you broke,
You do not stay with the manager. You stay in the city jail with your face in your hands!
Questions of Repayment and "what is broken?"
One glaring problem of logic with the "Pottery Barn" Theory is that it is assumed that we must stay until reparations are met. But "what are we making payments for?" "How much is the payment?" Also, "Why must we stay until the payments are completed?" In fact--there are even more questions concerning payments and what is considered "repayments" as well as "why should we even pay in the first place" that are left unanswered.
But even before one can broach the subject of payments and what has you, one must ask "what is the international decorum that should be practiced if we "broke" a nation?" So far, if a nation invaded another "by mistake" the leaders of the two nations will sit down and discuss what is considered proper form to keep such things from occurring again.
If the invasion is intentional--such discussions are left to latter times. That is, after an exercise of military prowess forces one nation to concede to the other. In both cases--there is no sense of the "Pottery Barn" maxim any here. The invasion was either intentional or not. In the case of intention--the victor need not make any "payments" to the vanquished! At least, I have never heard of a victorious side making payments to the vanquished for losing--nor ever I heard of any reasons in which the victor must make payments! (If someone has heard of such a case, please forward the name of the war and/or nations involved so I can go over it.)
So--where did this "pottery barn" idea come from when we talk of wars and the historic relationship between nations and their struggles? It has no place on the international scene. There is no such thing as "you broke it, you bought it" without any diplomatic teams from Iraq shoring up the Iraqi side of how to keep from invading their nation again. Even if we were to take up such a parochial view of the world, who is the person to negotiate the terms of "Repayments" since it makes little sense for the reckless customer to dictate the price of an item to the manager or managerial team! Worst--for the reckless customer to decide whom he or she should discuss the matter with.
Questions of Integrity–A "Pottery Barn" approach to the situation?
In many of the arguments utilizing the "Pottery Barn" theory, the arguer tries to broach the notion of integrity. He is basically asking the question "What is right?" while at the same time of answering it with "This is right." Unfortunately for such an arguer, there are many notions of right and wrong that he deliberately tries to avoid.
For instance, A "right" way is to bring in an independent arbitrator to dictate terms and conditions to normalize the situation. When such an idea is presented to the arguer, he quickly denounces such an idea. Thus we do not have an "International Judge" to remedy the situation.
Another is to bring forth the "owners" to discuss the matter with. Here we run into the problem of "who is the owner?". This is a problem because of determining the rightful arbitrators for Iraq run into how they are selected, the integrity of the selection process, and do the arbitrators represent the Iraqi interests most effectively. Such a process is much more delicate and could easily become corrupted either by us or by the selected group. This can occur intentionally or unintentionally.
Here, our administration has already shown signs of not respecting a particular group as arbitrator--namely the Iraqi parliament. If Maliki or Talabani ever make the notion that we should leave the "Iraqi Pottery Barn", I am sure the arguer of this theory would quickly point out that the Iraqi government is not serving in the best interest of Iraq and seek to ignore them.
So now we come to the last notion of integrity. If there is no "owner" and there is no "arbitrator" then what is the honorable thing to do. It is here where I feel that the arguer intentions are best revealed. We are to present ourselves as both. The proposal of the theory would suggest this, despite the fact that there exists obvious owners(the people and/or government of Iraq) and an arbitrator (the UN). The arguer seeks to ignore them both and do what he pleases under the disguise of honor and integrity.
Understand that an honorable man cherishes these notions as worth more than life itself. A rogue takes these ideas and discards them as like leaves in a forest. I doubt that such an arguer has seriously thought through the "Pottery Barn" Theory with care. If so, he must know that if he wishes to follow this administration for every step of the way, his integrity must be treated like leaves in a forest.
Although I barely scratch the surface of the "Pottery Barn" Theory and many of the traps that lie in its use, it does not take much to understand that Iraq is not a Pottery Barn where the destruction of government and property can be addressed with simple monetary payments. Nor is our integrity restored if we do make the proper payments. The only way to restore our integrity on such a manner is to address those most affected by it and to assure other nations that we will not make such a grave mistake again. There are no such plans, policies or talks that address this. Quite the contrary, there are talks, policies and plans in action as I write now that intends to make a "Pottery Barn" out of Iran now.
(PFAISGE:Please Forgive All Incorrect Spellings and Grammatical Errors, I have tried to make corrections of this entry, but I am sure to have missed many of them.)