November 2, 2003
TOCUEVILLE ON THE TIGRIS:
A War of Choice, and One Who Chose It (David Ignatius, November 2, 2003, Washington Post)
It was a classic Paul Wolfowitz moment: He was speaking at a new women's rights center here nine days ago when someone asked for his advice on writing an Iraqi constitution. Wolfowitz, the professor turned Pentagon war planner, began quoting Alexis de Tocqueville's theories about democracy to the residents of this ancient city on the banks of the Euphrates River."There are people in the world who say that Arabs can't build democracy," Wolfowitz told the crowd. "I think that's nonsense. You have a chance to prove them wrong. So please do it."
That interaction captured the missing element in many analyses of the Iraq conflict. Commentators in Europe and the Arab world write darkly about America's designs on Iraqi oil, or a conspiracy to enrich Vice President Cheney's old friends at Halliburton, or a plot to help Israel. It would be nice, in a weird way, if the Iraq war were anchored to such worldly interests. But it isn't.
The reality is that this may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times -- a war whose only coherent rationale, for all the misleading hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda terrorists, is that it toppled a tyrant and created the possibility of a democratic future. It was a war of choice, not necessity, and one driven by ideas, not merely interests. In that sense, the paradigmatic figure of the war is Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and the Bush administration's idealist in chief.
Actually, it's the President who's the idealist in chief of this administration. Those ideals could end up misguided--Arabs could, one supposes, prove to be the one people on Earth who prefer squalor and oppression to freedom, democracy, and affluence--but even if that were to prove to be the case, there's no shame in having tried to bring them the latter. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2003 6:13 AM
The central question is not how convincing the US can/will be regarding Iraqi/Arab democracy, or public participation in goverment. Such arguments are seductive enough and can stand on their own merits.
The question is how ruthless can/will the US be in opposing those forces that want, that must have, this effort to fail at all costs.
There is a time/stamina element involved. All the opponents have to do is to survive and destroy, intimidate and kill (and they are very good at this). The poisoned media and "thoughtfulness" of the west will take care of the rest.
It is a question of resoluteness and the ability to draw correct conclusions. In short, it is very problematic so long as the perception exists that the US is not itself in any real (or should the be "imminent") danger.
Barry:
Past a certain point, it's up to the participants to repel the spoilers.
If the US can leave Iraq with a working infrastructure and a fairly peaceful social environment, that's all that can be asked.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 2, 2003 11:45 PMWould it were so....
But we have been reminded that "the worst are full of terrible intensity." Even if we would like to forget.
And one can expect that a vacuum will not remain a vacuum for long.
The Taliban and the Baathists (and all others of their ilk) ruled, and rule, because of their extraordinary brutality, their intimidation and their fear of losing power, combined, in some cases, with an overarching belief in divine right and the utter morality of their brutality.
The question is, how does a tolerant and civilized (yes!) society deal with ruthlessness, murder, intimidation and lying on a massive (global?) level.
I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul, no matter what we wish to believe, or would like to have occur.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at November 3, 2003 5:45 AM