Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The Perspective of Three Years

There is some opinion about the Iraq War out there that is not overcome with second-guessing about the number of troops* that should have been sent in.

ReasonOnline, a publication of the libertarian Cato Institute, offers three contrasting views of Iraq from three informed figures who are from the Middle East--all with ties to Cato, by the way--on the third anniversary of the President's widely (and deliberately?) misunderstood declaration of "mission accomplished. The contrasts are interesting, but the relative absence of second guessing is refreshing.

We particularly recommend the first entry, by one Michael Young, a Lebanese. Here's a quotation, which reinforces our refrain that to win the war, the only thing that the United States needs that it doesn't currently have is the will to endure:

What's next for Iraq? I feel no confidence making predictions from Beirut. Iraqi society has shown more resilience than it has been given credit for, and it is keen to avoid the wasteland of full-scale civil war. Inter-sectarian killings will continue, which may make it seem like civil war has already started. But war is more than killing; it requires a vast leviathan that can sustain the carnage, fund it, and mobilize society while keeping the unhappy in line. Such machinery is not fully in place in Iraq, which is, provisionally, good news. As for the U.S., the question is no longer whether it must leave Iraq, but whether the administration has the will to stay and defend its gains there. As talk of civil war escalates, would Americans agree to send more troops to avert disaster? No. Psychologically, no matter how many soldiers remain in Iraq, many in the U.S. have already headed for the exits.

This doesn't bode well for open societies in the Middle East.


______________________
*It has become self-evidently true to the MSM that more American soldiers who don't speak Arabic and who know nothing of Islam or Middle Eastern culture would have been able to pacify the country after the invasion. The only problem with that notion is the "self-evidently true" part.

2 comments:

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Staying the course is not the same as doing the same thing.

Who says that belief in glorious martyrdom is more socially powerful than belief in liberty? The history of the 20th century is a story of the defeat of the "undefeatable" totalitarians.

Rico, if you read the linked pieces, you'll find one that agrees with you that the Middle East will never change. But you'll find another who disagrees. And he lives there. He sees the American action, flawed as it is, as a signal moment for political change in that region.

We think that history points to the power of persistence and the power of liberty.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

You're so right, Rico. The Iraqis should have overthrown Saddam themselves, just like the Americans overthrew George III with no help from the French.

Simon Bolivar should have stayed home instead of running all over South America chasing out the Spanish.

The Hungarians and the Czechs were just too wimpy when they couldn't toss out the Soviets in 1956 and 1968 by themselves.

And those miserable Belgians and Dutch. I guess with their culture, they just love being overrun by Germany every so often.

Do we need to replay the events of 1991 to remember that Bush the First allowed Saddam to crush the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions by not giving the help that he had ostensibly promised through clandestine channels?

If American strength exists for anything, it is to liberate, not to insulate. I pity the cynicism that sees the opposite, and it's really something for me to pity cynicism.