How the Violence in Iraq Will End: With a Whimper

catzmeow · #1 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 10:03 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0510210831.asp

Great column, as always....

Quote:

The Western media was relatively quiet about the quite amazing news from the recent trifecta in Iraq: very little violence on election day, Sunni participation, and approval of the constitution. Those who forecasted that either the Sunnis would boycott, or that the constitution would be — and should be — rejected, stayed mum.

But how odd that in the face of threats, a higher percentage of Iraqis in this nascent democracy voted in a referendum than did we Americans during our most recent presidential election — we who have grown so weary of Iraq’s experiment.

Something must be going on when the cable-news outlets could not whet their appetite for carnival-like violence and pyrotechnics in Iraq, and so diverted their attention to Toledo, where live streams of American looting and arson seemed to be more like Iraq than Iraq.

There have been three great challenges with the Iraqi reconstruction that would determine its success or failure — once the spectacular three-week invasion both falsely raised public perceptions of perfection in war, and posed the problem of how to rebuild an entire society whose pathological elements were never really defeated, much less humiliated during the actual conventional war.

It's Not An American Face You See Now
By needs we had a high profile, and it unfortunately seemed to get only higher. Americans, not Iraqis, gave lectures on everything from electricity production to constitutional reform. There was essentially no Iraqi army, so Americans were put in the unenviable position of enforcing law and order — a necessary task that nonetheless could only breed resentment in the heart of the Arab and Islamic Middle East. And there was not even a semblance of a legitimate government to replace Saddam. Former dissidents were either dead or tainted with Western exile. Future democrats were in the shadows, unsure whether the beheaders and assassins might in fact turn out to be their new Taliban-like rulers.

A good way to predict accurately our future in Iraq would be to ask how these three dilemmas have evolved over the last 30 months. Fortunately, there is no replacement position for an American proconsul, and we have forgotten how rare it is now to see an American on television in any official position. No one is talking, at least publicly, of future bases or a permanent and large American presence. Instead, the Iraqis are more worried that we might leave than stay. All that is a good sign.

Second, with over 200,000 Iraqi security forces, various local policemen, and American and Coalition troops, there are perhaps nearly 400,000 actively opposed to the terrorists. The number is growing rather than shrinking. We are seeing more enlistments than defections. The result is that, incrementally and insidiously, Americans are less and less in the position of being the cop, swat-team, or battalion that Iraqis see daily as the providers of their order and security. As in the case of fewer visible diplomats, so too fewer observable soldiers shift the onus onto the Iraqis to solidify — or lose — their gift of democracy.

Third, a second national referendum was even more tranquil than the first. Things are not static in Iraq, but are on a clear path to key parliamentary elections and the first truly popularly elected government in the region’s history in December. This is already putting enormous pressures on the Syrians and some of the Gulf states, as Arab audiences see less Americans patrolling and more Iraqis voting on their television screens. And now we go from a humane and sober election to the trial of Saddam Hussein, as the first tyrant to be tried in the Middle East experiences the justice that neither he nor any other regional strongman ever granted to others.

On the periphery of all this, we are seeing a decline in Osama bin Laden’s popularity, more European worries about radical Islam, and a number of formerly ambivalent nations like Japan, India, and the former Commonwealth ever more eager to work with the United States.

Iraq? Huh?

Printer2 · #2 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 08:57 PM

the article is probably right.

Joker · #3 (**permalink**) 10-29-2005, 07:31 AM

But there are a lot "facts" in this article that don't quite add up. Iraqis are more worried that we might leave than stay. This puts pressure on Syria and other Arab nations, etc. I see a lot of articles saying exactly the opposite, so who should I believe. Well, I'd like to believe this guy, whoever he or she is, because it just sounds so nice, there is one point made that I know is false, which leaves the whole article suspect to me. This writer suggest that Japan is becoming more eager to support US. So why is it government having serious discussions about changing their constitution so that they will be less dependant on the US in the future? Why are the overwhelming majority of Japanese citizens against Japan's coalition force in Iraq? If Japan is becoming more eager to support US, which I highly doubt, it is because of fears of an eminent attack from North Korea, not because of any successes in Iraq.

and btw:

Quote:

But how odd that in the face of threats, a higher percentage of Iraqis in this nascent democracy voted in a referendum than did we Americans during our most recent presidential election.

Well, what do expect, what with the choices we had.

[/quote]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode