FORCING THE CONTRADICTIONS FILES (via Kevin Whited):

Will the Opposition Lead? (PAUL BERMAN, 4/15/04, NY Times)

Some people argue that anti-totalitarian revolutions can never be brought about from outside. The history of World War II says otherwise. Some people respond with the observation that Germany, Italy and Japan are nothing like the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, the American-led invasion has nonetheless brought about an anti-totalitarian revolution. A pretty feeble revolution, true — but even feeble progress suggests large possibilities.

The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons. The Baathists, in short, contributed their bit to the atmosphere that led to Sept. 11. Yet Iraq could also boast of liberal democrats and some admirable achievements in the Kurdish north, which meant there were people to support, and not just to oppose. Such were the hopes.

As for the results — well, in one respect, these have turned out to be, in spite of everything, almost comically successful. Baathism's super-weapons may have been a figment of the universal imagination; but as soon as the United States elevated this figment into a world crisis, astonishing progress was made in tracking down weapons programs and trafficking in Libya, Iran, Dubai and Pakistan. Some people will go on insisting that sudden progress on these matters has nothing to do with Iraq, and the dominoes tumbled simultaneously by sheer coincidence — but some people will believe anything.

Nobody can doubt, however, that even in its planning stages, the invasion and occupation of Iraq were depressingly bungled. The whole thing was done in an odd mood of hysteria and parsimony, a bad combination. It is tempting to conclude that, all in all, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq altogether — and maybe this will turn out to be the case.

But everyone who feels drawn to that conclusion had better acknowledge its full meaning: the unavoidable implication that we would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in power; better off with economic sanctions still strangling the Iraqi people; better off with American army bases still occupying Saudi soil (Osama bin Laden's original grievance against us); and better off without the progress on weapons proliferation in the Muslim world (unless you believe in the sheer-coincidence theory, in which case, you think that progress would have happened willy-nilly). That is a pretty horrifying set of alternatives.

Now we need allies — people who will actually do things, and not just offer benedictions from afar. Unfortunately — how many misfortunes can fall upon our heads at once? — finding allies may not be easy. Entire populations around the world feel a personal dislike for America's president, which makes it difficult for even the friendliest of political leaders in some countries to take pro-American positions.

But the bigger problem has to do with public understandings of the war. People around the world may not want to lift a finger in aid so long as the anti-totalitarian logic of the war remains invisible to them. President Bush ought to have cleared up this matter. He has, in fact, spoken about conspiracy theories and hatred (including at Tuesday's press conference). He has spoken about a new totalitarianism, and has even raised the notion of a war of ideas.

But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq (and his gleeful opponents have muddied things even further by pretending that weapons were the only reason for war). He muddied the issues again by doing relatively little to promote a war of ideas — quite as if his loftier comments were merely blather. His national security statement of 2002 flatly declared that totalitarianism no longer existed — a strange thing to say. War requires clarity. Here is incoherence.

Somebody else will have to straighten out these confusions, then. I think it will have to be the Democrats — at least those Democrats who accept the anti-totalitarian logic.

One really has to feel sorry for Paul Berman and the other folk of the decent Left who just can't accept the fact that George W. Bush is vindicating their ideals in the world while the Democrats, Europeans, and the rest oppose them. His project to bring liberal democracy to the Islamic world is precisely what Mr. Berman has called for. It is being waged not just militarily but far more so at the level of ideas. And, as Mr. Berman himself notes, it is going rather well.

Meanwhile, you have to truly trivialize the power of ideas in order to believe the reason we don't have many European allies and that the Democrats oppose these efforts is because they don't like George Bush. In reality they don't like the project. You can't really blame them either--it's expensive; it's deadly; and it takes attention and money away from the domestic spending programs that are the raison d'etre of the Left. The altruism of bringing freedom to other peoples can hold little attraction for those whose whole focus is their own comfort. Mr. Berman writes regularly now about the mystery of why his friends on the Left refuse to join the crusade he believes in, even when he explains its justness to them himself. Isn't it a bit much to keep blaming this on George Bush?

As for the question of WMDs, they were not the President's justification for the war. He made a quite straightforward case for the liberation of the Iraqi people. WMD were only brought into the matter because Tony Blair and Colin Powell thought they'd be a useful lever with which to move the EU and the UN. As Paul Wolfowitz so nicely put it, the WMD issue was nothing more than a bureaucratic point around which you could seek unity. You can't get everyone to fight for freedom, but you might be able to get them to fight with you if they're scared for their own skins.

Mr. Berman even concedes that it is opponents of the war who have tried inflating the significance WMD issue beyond what it will bear. The American people though are not fooled. They believe that the point of the war was to create a more democratic and stable Iraq and that it will have been a success if that happens. Americans have heard anf follwed their President as he's waged a war of ideas.

Mr. Berman needs to stop cajoling the enemy and recognize that his allies are, however unpalatably, on the Right.

MORE:
-HE OUGHTA GO WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS HIS NAME
-THE MODERNITY OF BARBARISM
-FRANK N SENSE

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 15, 2004 10:03 AM