Thursday, February 03, 2005
The war on terror
There appears to be a commitment among the majority Shiite leadership to create a government which minority Sunnis and Kurds find acceptable. The most promising development was the extent to which Iraqis provided for their own security in the election. The polls were protected by more than 25,000 Iraqi troops, with the United States providing largely unused standby backup. As the elections approached, local militias started stepping forward to volunteer to help with Election Day security.
The terrorists have been targeting Iraqis more than Americans. It appears that a critical tipping point may have been reached, in which Iraqis view the battle as less between the insurgents and the United States and more between the insurgents and their own future.
While, again, there is a long way between this election and a broader democratic movement in the Middle East, this vote and that of the Palestinians did reverberate. The prospects for democratic reform elsewhere will undoubtedly improve.
If Iraq becomes a stable, secure democracy, the international view of the Iraq war will undoubtedly change. The defiance of international opposition to invasion and the failure to find the precipitating weapons of mass destruction will give way to the success of the enterprise.
There are many difficult passages yet to negotiate. But if Bush's policy turns out to have worked, does that make it right?
Success — now and in the future — shouldn't be the end of the argument as to whether the Iraq war was a prudent exercise of American force. The liberation of the Iraq people, particularly if followed by secure and stable democratic governance, is a wonderful event. But the purpose of the United States government is to protect the freedom of and provide security to the American people.
The Iraq war, at least in the short-run, unquestionably makes the United States more of a terrorist target, not less of one. Islamic terrorists are inflamed both by U.S. intervention in their lands and by the prospect of secular democratic governance. So, the cause of their grievance has been doubled.
The terrorists have been targeting Iraqis more than Americans. It appears that a critical tipping point may have been reached, in which Iraqis view the battle as less between the insurgents and the United States and more between the insurgents and their own future.
While, again, there is a long way between this election and a broader democratic movement in the Middle East, this vote and that of the Palestinians did reverberate. The prospects for democratic reform elsewhere will undoubtedly improve.
If Iraq becomes a stable, secure democracy, the international view of the Iraq war will undoubtedly change. The defiance of international opposition to invasion and the failure to find the precipitating weapons of mass destruction will give way to the success of the enterprise.
There are many difficult passages yet to negotiate. But if Bush's policy turns out to have worked, does that make it right?
Success — now and in the future — shouldn't be the end of the argument as to whether the Iraq war was a prudent exercise of American force. The liberation of the Iraq people, particularly if followed by secure and stable democratic governance, is a wonderful event. But the purpose of the United States government is to protect the freedom of and provide security to the American people.
The Iraq war, at least in the short-run, unquestionably makes the United States more of a terrorist target, not less of one. Islamic terrorists are inflamed both by U.S. intervention in their lands and by the prospect of secular democratic governance. So, the cause of their grievance has been doubled.
