Between 1991 and 2003, the countrys farm sector experienced unprecedented decline, in the end leaving almost the entire nation dependent on rations distributed by the United Nations under Oil-for-Food. In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival. Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries, something that has not happened since the 1950s. Much of the upturn is due to smallholders who, shaking off the collectivist system imposed by the Baathists, have retaken control of land that was confiscated decades ago by the state.
Yet another blow to the corpse of planned economies. Latin America should take notice (they won't).
As Senator Hagel puts it, You cannot in my opinion just impose a democratic form of government on a country with no history and no culture and no tradition of democracy.
I would tend to agree. But is Iraq such a place? In point of fact, before the 1958 pro-Soviet military coup detat that established a leftist dictatorship, Iraq did have its modest but nevertheless significant share of democratic history, culture, and tradition. The country came into being through a popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament, several political parties (including the Baath and the Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for debate and dissent in the Muslim Middle East.
Butbutbut...they're not supposed to be able to do democracy in them thar benighted foreign places! It's nothing more than a Western logophallotechnocentric tyranny!
But what about all those deaths? 23,000 and counting. What about the way the insurgency keeps killing people, no matter how many times they're declared defeated?
These democratic achievements are especially impressive when set side by side with the declared aims of the enemies of the new Iraq, who have put up a determined fight against it. Since the countrys liberation, the jihadists and residual Baathists have killed an estimated 23,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, in scores of random attacks and suicide operations. Indirectly, they have caused the death of thousands more, by sabotaging water and electricity services and by provoking sectarian revenge attacks.
But they have failed to translate their talent for mayhem and murder into political success. Their campaign has not succeeded in appreciably slowing down, let alone stopping, the countrys democratization. Indeed, at each step along the way, the jihadists and Baathists have seen their self-declared objectives thwarted.
He goes into detail, describing all the objectives the terrorist have tried to achieve, and how they haven't achieved a one of them. Read the whole thing, as they say.
Plus, he gives us the most detailed account of the future of Iraq that I've heard from anybody, including any of our political leaders:
The current mandate of the U.S.-led coalition runs out at the end of this year, and it is unlikely that Washington and its allies will want to maintain their military presence at current levels. In the past few months, more than half of the 103 bases used by the coalition have been transferred to the new Iraqi army. The best guess is that the number of U.S. and coalition troops could be cut from 140,000 to 25,000 or 30,000 by the end of 2007.
One might wonder why, if the military mission has been so successful, the U.S. still needs to maintain a military presence in Iraq for at least another two years. There are three reasons for this.
One is keeping the Iranians and Turks honest. Two is guaruntee-ing that what we build won't fall apart. Three is making sure the Iraqi Army and police continue to perform to high standards. The question is, will we have the will to do it? The political inertia makes it difficult, even for a small force to remain. The "who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake" trope will rise gurgling from the grave. The forest will be ignored for the trees. Everything Taheri describes will be risked so that the Left can indulge its Woodstock fantasies:
The stakes, in short, could not be higher. This is all the more reason to celebrate, to build on, and to consolidate what has already been accomplished. Instead of railing against the Bush administration, Americas elites would do better, and incidentally display greater self-respect, to direct their wrath where it properly belongs: at those violent and unrestrained enemies of democracy in Iraq who are, in truth, the enemies of democracy in America as well, and of everything America has ever stood for.
So if, reading all of this, you're desperate for an ad hominem to squirt at me like an octopus' cloud, let me put the straw together (and THAT'S what you call mixing your metaphors): I, civilian out of harm's way, hereby support and desire our professional soldiery to continue their dangerous task. I desire that those who have died not be used as a cudgel to defeat the living. I earnestly pray that they may be allowed to achieve the victory towards which they have so honorably labored. You may now feel free to call me Chickenhawk, Wingnut, 101st Fighting Keyboarder, White Feather, Yellow-Belly, what have you.
But I promise this: if they come home defeated, it's not me that they'll be angry at.
No comments:
Post a Comment