Re: Iraq. Good column by former head of the United Press International, John O’Sullivan (British expat living in the U.S.)
April 13, 2004, 12:03 p.m.
Assessment Disconnect
Are we headed toward success or disaster in Iraq?
Among the responses to the Iraq fighting of the last ten days, there has been a striking and counterintuitive contrast between the reactions inside and those outside Iraq. Panic, hysteria, and defeatism have been more common away from the battlefield ? outside Iraq and especially in Washington. Calm and a sense of proportion have characterized the reactions, notably the reactions of the U.S. military, inside Iraq.
Senator Edward Kennedy’s argument that Iraq is President Bush’s Vietnam was perhaps the reductio ad absurdum of Washington’s hysteria. As Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed out in a commonsense response, there is almost no similarity between the two interventions. In Iraq, the U.S. is fighting a raggle-taggle alliance of terrorists and local thugs; in Vietnam it was up against both a seasoned guerrilla force and the regular North Vietnamese army. In Vietnam, 57,000 Americans died; in Iraq the total so far is less than 1,000. And so on.
Almost the only point of comparison is that Senator Kennedy is reliving his youth by re-fighting the Vietnam War on every possible occasion. An entire generation of politicians and reporters in Washington shares this desire to be young and revolutionary again. But they have to temper it with a realistic appreciation of changing times. Kennedy brooks no such restraint. For him every year is 1968. He is the Peter Pan of protest.
His guilty secret (well, one of his guilty secrets) is that he was rather slow to get on the “right” antiwar side in the 1960s. He is determined not to make the same mistake again. So he makes the opposite mistake of deciding that the U.S. is about to be defeated whenever it meets the slightest opposition. This irritable mental tic he calls the lessons of history. It lurks and festers in the breast of every 68er. Hence the constant temptation to panic, hysteria, and defeatism in Washington and the media. They are looking on the bright side.
The calmer reactions in Iraq are explained by the fact that people there know the political and economic background against which the current “troubles” are taking place. One need not be an optimist ? I am pessimistic both by nature and from policy ? to see real signs of progress in the country. The economy is recovering, unemployment is high but falling, public services are much restored, and the oil is flowing again (at a time of rising world oil prices.) In addition there is about to be a further massive injection of money into the country as the U.S.-financed rebuilding of Iraq gets under way.
These favorable economic prospects are reflected in signs of rising public confidence. Almost all the opinion polls tell essentially the same story: a clear majority of the Iraqi people, generally about two-thirds, think that the U.S. intervention and ousting of Saddam Hussein were Good Things. In the Oxford Research Internatoinal poll (commissioned for the BBC and so presumably not designed to please either Tony Blair or the U.S.) 57 percent of Iraqis said that they were better off today than a year ago ? and 70 percent expect to be better off in a year’s time.
Above all, there is a two-stage plan for the establishment of a democratic Iraqi sovereign state. In the first stage, the U.S. will transfer political control to a provisional governing council on June 30; in the second stage, elections for a fully sovereign democratic government will be held in January next year.
Such moves towards democracy have strong but irresolute public support. As Michael Rubin points out in the forthcoming National Review, fully 86 percent of Iraqis in the ORI poll supported “an Iraqi democracy” but an overlapping 81 percent also wanted “a single strong Iraqi leader.” Iraqis are plainly sick of the recent disorder and want reassurance that democracy will not mean making it permanent. They can get that reassurance only through the experience of living in a stable and orderly democratic society.
It is fortuntate that U.S. troops will remain to support the new Iraqi state until it has sufficient domestic armed forces to maintain order. The U.S. ambassador will therefore be the most important man in Iraq for many years and perhaps many decades. Even with these qualifications, however, an Iraq on these lines would be a secure Arab and Muslim democracy ? and therefore a significant catalyst for liberal reform in Middle East politics.
This largely explains the outburst of unrest in the last two weeks.
All those opposed to reforms ? Iran, Saudi Arabia, both Sunni and Shia fundamentalists, Baathist bitter-enders, formerly privileged Sunni Iraqis ? had an interest in wrecking the new democracy before it could even be established. Two of those groups ? former Baathists in Fallujah, and fundamentalist Shiites in the south ? staged rebellions to do just that. But the rebellions failed. Most Iraqis held aloof from them ? in particular, the most senior Shia clerics withheld their support for the firebrand Motoqba Al-Sadr ? and order is gradually being restored by admittedly tough methods. What now needs to be done to ensure that progress continues?
The first step is to demonstrate that rebellions will not merely be crushed but also punished. One contributory factor to the recent unrest, as I argued, was that our enemies in Iraq did not fear us. The cease-fire in Fallujah, however justified on military or humanitarian grounds, may have reinforced that impression. A simple step to instilling that necessary fear would be to ensure that Motoqba Al-Sadr is tried and executed “pour encourager les autres.”
Second, the transfer of power to the provisional governing authority has to go ahead ? it has become a matter of American prestige as well as of America’s word. Prior to the handover, however, we should seek to expand the council to include those tribal, religious and other leaders who notably did not assist the rebels. Our friends should be rewarded ? and neutral fence-sitters given reasons to become our friends.
Finally, we should make it clear that the new Iraqi governing body will not be opposed by Washington if it determines to postpone elections from next January to whenever they can be held in an atmosphere of order and safety. America’s interest is in a stable, decent, liberal, and friendly Iraqi government rather than in an instant and fragile democracy. Restoring order this week is the first step to a stable democracy down the road. It is not, however, the last step. Only when Iraqis feel that democracy and personal safety go together will an independent stable Iraqi democracy be possible. Add that may require a long-ish apprenticeship under constitutional arrangements that favor freedom of speech, thought, religion, and enterprise.
? John O’Sullivan is editor-in-chief of The National Interest. This piece first appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times and is reprinted with permission. O’Sullivan can be reached through Benador Associates