Amer Taheri: Iraq IS a success

Some useful advice to ponder during the upcoming midterm elections…

[quote]October 30, 2006 – AT the polls next week, many Americans will cast their ballots on the basis of what’s going on in Iraq. This is not surprising. The war was always opposed by a large and vocal segment of the U.S. political and cultural elite. With the economy doing well and the nation so far protected against a repeat of 9/11, the American opposition has few horses to run against President Bush and his party. And Iraq is an attractive horse, illustrated by gruesome TV images almost every night. Most Americans are unfamiliar with Iraq’s complex political, ethnic, religious and cultural realities. So, when television presents a charred vehicle left by a suicide bomber and experts pronouncing Iraq a failure, many decide that it is a lost cause - and the sooner the Americans extricate themselves, the better. This is precisely why the Saddamite desperados and the jihadists keep fighting a war in Iraq that they cannot win. Their strategy is based on a simple assumption: Americans will be so shocked and disheartened by the daily carnage that they’ll force their government to “cut and run” - or, if it refuses, replace it with one that will.

In Jihadist circles, that strategy is known as “the Madrid Logic” (mantaq al-Madrid), after the deadly terrorist operation in the Spanish capital that succeeded in changing that country’s government and its foreign policy. This logic works because the Western democracies’ political elites, and beyond them the electorate, seldom take the time to even ask the key questions, let alone find proper answers. Start with three questions: * Why did the United States and its allies intervene in Iraq? * Was it worthwhile, especially with reference to the national interests of the U.S. and allies? * Has it achieved its goals? For those who claim that the United States went to Iraq out of hubris, or to steal Iraq’s oil or to please Israel, the intervention was self-evidently worthless, and a failure. But the majority of Americans should judge liberation not with reference to conspiracy theories, but on the basis of their leaders’ stated objectives.

These were: * To topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had provoked two major regional wars and defied the will of the United Nations over two decades, and to dismantle its machinery of war and repression. * To restore power to the people of Iraq and help them set up a new political system of their choice. * To build new Iraq as a model for all Arab countries still under archaic despotic regimes.

All three goals have been achieved, albeit in varying degrees of success:

  • Saddam is in prison, with his machinery of war and repression shattered. * Power has been restored to the people of Iraq, who have written their own Constitution, held a series of free elections and formed a coalition government of their choice. * Despite its obvious difficulties, new Iraq has inspired democratic aspirations across the Middle East, and forced some of the despotic regimes into making concessions to their peoples.

Does all that justify intervention? Some might think not. Others, however, will assert that helping free a nation of 25 million from one of the worst regimes in recent history was a noble deed. Did it serve the interests of America and its allies? Again, some might say: No, it angered some U.S. allies and partners, notably France and Russia, while causing anxiety among Washington’s Arab protégés. But it is also possible to argue that the United States can never be secure until the Middle East is democratized. The region’s undemocratic states, obsessed by Arab chauvinism or raving pan-Islamism, operate as swamps that breed the mosquitoes of terror. An Iraq under a democratic regime, based on the will of its peoples, poses no threat to America or its allies; a Saddamite or Qaeda-ist regime would. Was the intervention successful? Yes. The U.S.-led Coaltion achieved all its objectives in Iraq in just three years. What is at issue now is how to protect that success against enemies out to undo it. It is on this account that the U.S.-led Coalition’s policies and performance in Iraq are open to a range of criticism. Such criticism, however, should not cast doubt on the legitimacy and basic success of the intervention so far.

It is no surprise that so dramatic a success would provoke much equally dramatic hostility. The remnants of the Saddamites were never expected to shed their uniforms and go home to cry, nor the jihadists to swallow the coming of democracy to the Arab heartland. Nor could Tehran’s mullahs be expected to tolerate a Shiite majority democracy next door to the theocratic prison they have created, or Arab despots to welcome an Iraq where people can change the government through the ballot box. Political mavericks such as Muqtada Sadr, backed by militias financed and armed by Tehran, could not be expected to ignore opportunities to win by force the power they can’t get in free elections. Nor would the Mafia-type criminal gangs that thrived in Saddam’s final years simply go away. New Iraq has many vicious enemies because it is a success. It is not a failure to be jettisoned quickly, but a victory that must be defended within the timeframe needed to crush its enemies. So far, those enemies have failed to derail the political process in Iraq or to extend their initial constituencies. Yesterday’s column detailed how these forces failed to achieve any of their stated goals for the bloody Ramadan just concluded. Their only success has been in the field of perceptions in America and the West in general. It is largely the hope of breaking the will of the American people that keeps the insurgency alive. In that context, the only policy that is both moral and realistic is to stay the course. This does not mean sticking to policies and tactics that produce few results or are manifest failures - but sticking to the strategy of defending the emergence of a democratic Iraq as a model for reform in the Middle East. Such a strategy would achieve quicker success if it enjoyed bipartisan support in America. The biggest blow to the many enemies of new Iraq would be a clear message from the United States that, whoever controls the next Congress, Americans won’t hand Iraq over to the jihadists, the Saddamites or the mullahs of Tehran. Having won an historic victory in Iraq, the United States and its allies should have the courage to preserve it.
Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.[/quote]

nypost.com/seven/10302006/po … htm?page=0

Fix yr link size Fred and more will read this important info…IMO at least.

1a) hurrah. (Forgot genocide. Surely that should be on the list.)
1b) taken care of after the last of those major regional wars; thus, irrelevant.
1c) woo-hoo. This new found respect for the UN warms my heart. They’ll invade the US Congress the next time it withholds dues, right?
1d) taken care of after the last of those major regional wars; thus, irrelevant.
2) who holds political power in Iraq? And no, I’m not talking about the ineffectual mayor of the Green Zone. Whose choice was this political system? If the choice had been left to the Iraqis, in the days immediately following the invasion they would have established a theocracy, not played around with caucuses and rotating presidencies.
3) Uh, yea. Remember Putin’s joke about democracy, Iraqi style?

God protect us from more such success.

Really right now the main problem is where? Baghdad. Is that all of Iraq? And how despite all these great difficulties is it that the economy is expected to grow 16 percent? Hmmm? Yes, the security is bad but that is mainly in Baghdad. Right now, most now view the al Qaeda threat as limited. Ditto for the Sunni insurgency. The problem is now the sectarian violence. THAT is a problem but perhaps it too will be solved?

Why is it that really I sense not “realism” but “smirking triumphalism” every time something bad happens in Iraq? It is almost as if the posters were most concerned about proving Bush and his supporters wrong and therein lies the key reason why they and their views are treated with such overwhelming contempt.

[quote=“fred smith”]Right now, most now view the al Qaeda threat as limited.[/quote]The threat posed by al Qaeda operating in Iraq was always limited. :laughing:

[quote=“fred smith”]Why is it that really I sense not “realism” but “smirking triumphalism” every time something bad happens in Iraq? It is almost as if the posters were most concerned about proving Bush and his supporters wrong and therein lies the key reason why they and their views are treated with such overwhelming contempt.[/quote]Damn right… except that the smirk is firmly fixed on the political leaders; those affected get a hell of a lot more compassion from this side than from yours.

It’s impossible to turn back the clock, there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the dead. The political damage done, well, fixing that appears to be only slightly less difficult than raising the dead. But, discrediting the Bush Admin’s intellectually and morally bankrupt preemptive/ vengeful war policy…ensuring that policy ends up, double quick, in the dust bin of history, may prevent the next misadventure and avoid another half-million or more needless deaths.

Not when it was responsible for most of the bombings including those at the UN, various embassies, etc. etc.

How nice to know that you “feel” for people. That must make you “feel” very important, very moral and very good. But then you know how I feel about that.

I would respond more forcefully to this but then you would go running like a little baby to push the squeal button and my post would be deleted. Why is it that even people like MFGR do not have to resort to that little infantile trick whenever the debate gets heated? You are beneath my contempt. You are a mediocrity of such mediocreness that the only fun I might get is seeing someone like Broon Ale or Comrade Stalin parody your “concerns” to a laughable extent that would, er, make me laugh and thus give some meaning to even discussing such issues with the likes of you and your “feelings.” At least Bob is amusing. Now, isn’t it time for you to put me back on “ignore?” I really do think (sorry strike that: feel, I mean FEEL) it is for the best.

Right. And maybe then we can focus on the UN allowing MILLIONS of deaths by dicktators around the world, while they sit back, collect some oil vouchers, rape African women and girls…you know bidness as usual.

two words bud:

meat
grinder

Keep trying fred. Reload the scatter gun and, again, blast away blindly, 'cause it wasn’t me. Face it. Loads of sensible people feel you’re… :slight_smile: Well, I’m a gentleman: you know how others feel about you, what they think of these ridiculous excuses for intellectual engagement. Honest debate is impossible with you because it requires an honest desire to communicate with the other. I could almost suspect that you’d be as happy spewing vitriol at the guy in the mirror, except that you’ve already stomped off, promising never to return, only to return after I wondered aloud what you might think of good old Fukuyama’s awakening from his ideological slumber. From your posts, it appears that you love to perform for an audience, but won’t or can’t do it solo. Nonetheless, you’re entirely unable to acknowledge the place of others on the stage, or to share it with them. The result is that you come across as an off-key, syncopated, grasping prima donna. You can continue to resort to invective, stamp your feet, kick up the dust, and otherwise attempt to obscure the many failures of your political ‘philosophy’ (if reactionary bluster can be termed ‘philosophy’)… but you’re not fooling any one.

Right. And maybe then we can focus on the UN allowing MILLIONS of deaths by dicktators around the world, while they sit back, collect some oil vouchers, rape African women and girls…you know bidness as usual.[/quote]
That would be great. Absolutely fantastic. Because with real governance reform, the latter has the potential to actually help improve lives, whereas the former will merely end them.

Right. And maybe then we can focus on the UN allowing MILLIONS of deaths by dicktators around the world, while they sit back, collect some oil vouchers, rape African women and girls…you know bidness as usual.[/quote]
That would be great. Absolutely fantastic. Because with real governance reform, the latter has the potential to actually help improve lives, whereas the former will merely end them.[/quote]

Well J, I do sincerely wonder what it would take you to feel that the UN was ineffective in its present state? Or better yet, lest I be accused of offering you a plate of herring, what have they done that makes you feel they are effective?

The architects of ‘success’ in Iraq wouldn’t last five minutes outside the Green Zone before someone strung them up by their heels ‘to thank them.’

That should tell you something.

Really? How nice, but even worse that I just assumed it WAS you right? haha

What?

self-proclaimed any way…

What? Do tell…

What?

the other or The Other?

stomped? no waddled was more like it but thanks for the effort.

Solo? oh sort of like masturbation? no thanks. You seem more than capable of “handling” that on your own. I will leave you to it. haha

haha. More about the Others. Wasn’t that a movie with what’s her face? Nicole Kidman? Not bad. You should see it. Really you should.

I don’t grasp!

Wow, you are almost becoming boblike in your epic descriptions. At least for once you have written an interesting post so I guess under these terms I would be willing to share the stage with you and all that. Off-key is a most welcome respite from your usually unbearable mediocre musings on mediocrity. You are to be encourage in pursuing this line of responses. It makes a welcome change. Hurray.

Well J, I do sincerely wonder what it would take you to feel that the UN was ineffective in its present state? Or better yet, lest I be accused of offering you a plate of herring, what have they done that makes you feel they are effective?[/quote]
:smiley: You could just re-read my post.
With reforms–many and difficult–the UN has the potential to be very effective on various fronts.

In the past, and to a much lesser degree, today, it possesses the virtue of not making things worse. When major actors have to be seen to take action, but actually can’t without risking great harm, it’s nice to be able to kick things over to the UN, where there are many ways to ensure that nothing will be done… thus saving face. That’s no small thing.
(The book is out of date now, but still worth reading: United Nations: Sacred Drama.)

The UN is suffering from mission creep as much as anything else. The missions that it’s been asked to take on are good, but it doesn’t have the means or structures to carry them out.

Baby
bath water

The Bush doctrine, on the other hand, is a soiled diaper.

polish
still a turd.

Nah. Not interested. If you so enjoy banter and abuse, go stiff a cabbie on his fare.

I’m interested in politics and ideas. If you don’t want to read them, hit “Ignore.” Or beak off, and I’ll put you back on “Ignore.” I took you off because I was curious, but, frankly, too often the cost/benefit ratio just isn’t worth it.

Thanks for the advice.

Or so you say… How utterly lofty of you. I am sure that your friends are impressed. I know that I am.

It would require too great of an effort. I suggest that you put me back on ignore that way you can go back to “playing nicely.” haha

about what?

Amen.

[quote=“Jaboney”]
The UN is suffering from mission creep as much as anything else. The missions that it’s been asked to take on are good, but it doesn’t have the means or structures to carry them out.

Baby
bath water

The Bush doctrine, on the other hand, is a soiled diaper.

polish
still a turd.[/quote]

MIssion creep? That’s cool. I call it systematic corruption and impotency, but hey

tomato
tomahto

and btw, your smithian strings are improving, but for the Bush doctrine, for your viewpoint, not mine, I might suggest:

turd
punchbowl

:smiley:

I don’t write like that do I? and I think Jaboney has finally put me on ignore. I hope I didn’t make him cry… well, at least not too much. My governess always said not to tease other children because they might die… I think worrying about that scarred me for life, hence my interest in maintaining sincere, tactful conversations with my political and social adversaries. Now, where is MFGR…

I don’t write like that do I? and I think Jaboney has finally put me on ignore. I hope I didn’t make him cry… well, at least not too much. My governess always said not to tease other children because they might die… I think worrying about that scarred me for life, hence my interest in maintaining sincere, tactful conversations with my political and social adversaries. Now, where is MFGR…[/quote]

That would be me fred. :smiley:

Don’t take all the credit. :laughing:

Call me slow but I still don’t know what it is that you did and what a smithian string is and who did it?

For making Jaboney cry? Oh all right… I will share the stage with you on that one but I hope you won’t try to grasp anymore of the spotlight from me. You know that I am a bit of a prima donna albeit an off-key one so… watch your step…

Call me slow but I still don’t know what it is that you did and what a smithian string is and who did it?

For making Jaboney cry? Oh all right… I will share the stage with you on that one but I hope you won’t try to grasp anymore of the spotlight from me. You know that I am a bit of a prima donna albeit an off-key one so… watch your step…[/quote]

The only thing I hope to grasp from you is the venison from your plate at the next fred fest. :smiley: