Blasting George Will Again
Not too long ago, Marcie went after George Will. Then, she slammed him for his attachment to Democrat talking points over the NSA Intercept program. Today, I'd like to address his newest column Rhetoric of Unreality.
When late in the spring of 1940 people of southeastern England flocked across the Channel in their pleasure craft and fishing boats to evacuate soldiers trapped on Dunkirk beaches, euphoria swept Britain. So Prime Minister Winston Churchill sternly told the nation: "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."
Or by curfews, such as the one that cooled the furies that engulfed Iraq after the bombing last week of a Shiite shrine. Wars are not won simply by facing facts, but facing them is a necessary prerequisite.
The curfew put in place was a smart move by the Iraqi government. The curfew was in response to violence breaking out over the Al Askari mosque bombing, and while many might have considered those embracing the violene as mere protesters, over one hundred forty people would have disagreed with that observation. Those would be the ones killed during these violent outbursts.
Last week, in the latest iteration of a familiar speech (the enemy is "brutal," "we're on the offensive," "freedom is on the march") that should be retired, the president said, "This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people." Meaning what? Who is to choose, and by what mechanism? Most Iraqis already "chose" -- meaning prefer -- peace. But in 1917 there were only a few thousand Bolsheviks among 150 million Russians -- and the Bolsheviks succeeded in hijacking the country for seven decades.
After Iraqis voted in December for sectarian politics, an observer said Iraq had conducted not an election but a census. Now America's heroic ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, one of two indispensable men in Iraq, has warned the Iraqi political class that unless the defense and interior ministries are nonsectarian, meaning not run as instruments of the Shiites, the United States will have to reconsider its support for Iraq's military and police. But that threat is not credible: U.S. strategy in Iraq by now involves little more than making the Iraqi military and police competent. As the president said last week: "Our strategy in Iraq is that the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."
True, we will stand down as the Iraqis take over more and more duties. However, I believe that Ambassador Khalilzad meant, by his statement, that the Shiites can't be the only ones in charge of the military and the police. To truly be a democracy, all must be represented at every level of the government. The overall fear of allowing a small group to run a major aspect of the government is that they may visit a vendetta on those that oppressed them in the past. Let's face facts here: While Iraq did indeed embrace democracy, there are still old wounds amongst the populace. Old habits are hard to break, and if allowed to fester, a sort of tyranny could emerge from areas within the government.
Iraq's prime minister responded to Khalilzad's warning by accusing him of interfering in Iraq's "internal affairs." Think about that, and about the distinction drawn by the U.S. official in Iraq who, evidently looking on what he considers the bright side, told Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, "This isn't a war. It's violent nation-building."
Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on its constitution, Iraq barely has a government. A defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. That attribute is incompatible with the existence of private militias of the sort that maraud in Iraq.
The militias within Iraq are a catch-22; they not only assist in ridding the country of al Zarqawi and his al Qaeda thugs, but they also serve as a thorn in the side of the fledgling government. This is an issue the Iraqis will have to work out on their own, much like we did after the Revolutionary War. What were we to do with the Minutemen? What of the militias that had served the nation, fighting for it's independence? Hamilton addresses the issue in Federalist #29:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?
Hamilton recognized the necessity of the militia, and scoffed at the idea that they, themselves, would be a danger to the Union. Likewise, the same argument could be made for the Iraqi militias. These people have turned over terrorists to our troops and to the Iraqi police/security units. They have also tipped off the authorities to the terrorists that have infiltrated their towns before. In fact, it was the Iraqis that tipped our forces off to where Saddam Hussein was hidden. Will there be some militias that may act "independently" of the government? Probably, however, for Mr. Will to cast them aside as a problem is foolish. Muqtada al Sadr was a problem, and after a reconciliation with the Iraqi provisional government, he was accepted "into the fold." And I'd like to remind everyone that is was al Sadr that called for an end to the violence surrounding the mosque bombing.
Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports that Shiite militias "have broken up coed picnics, executed barbers [for the sin of shaving beards] and liquor store owners, instituted their own courts, and posted religious guards in front of girls' schools to ensure Iranian-style dress." Iraq's other indispensable man, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, says that unless the government can protect religious sites, "the believers will."
As I just stated, there will be some bad apples. It is up to the Iraqis to either deal with them--breaking up their militia group--or putting them on a leash to control them. Their very actions that Mr. Will cites are violations of the Iraqi Constitution. And Ali Sistani is correct, and that may be what is necessary to protect the religious sites. This is an opportunity for the militias and Iraq's fledgling military; together they can work to secure the country. If the military is too busy getting the terrorists under control, the militia can protect the sites that require it. It is obvious by the tactics that are being used by the terrorists now that they are trying to incite a religious civil war. And after Ahmadinejad's rhetoric shortly after the mosque bombing, Iran should be considered a prime suspect behind that bombing. We know that Hezbollah has crossed from Iran into Iraq, and that Iran embraces them as a pseudo-shadow army. Does it not make sense that whoever did the bombing could have been acting on orders from Ahmadinejad?
When violence surges, if U.S. forces take the lead in suppressing it they delay the day when Iraqi forces will be competent. If U.S. forces hold back, they are blamed by an Iraqi population that is being infantilized by displacing all responsibilities onto the American occupation.
In the New Republic, Lawrence Kaplan, writing with a Baghdad dateline, says that only U.S. forces, which "have become an essential part of the landscape here -- their own tribe, in effect," can be "an honest broker" between warring factions, "more peacekeeper than belligerent." But he also reports:
"With U.S reconstruction aid running out, Iraq's infrastructure, never fully restored to begin with, decays by the hour. . . . The level of corruption that pervades Iraq's ministerial orbit . . . would have made South Vietnam's kleptocrats blush. . . . [C]orruption has helped drive every public service measure -- electricity, potable water, heating oil -- down below its prewar norm."
No one said that this was going to be easy. For people like Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Will who might have believed that we would establish a stable, secure government in the course of four years in Iraq, and that all would be well, you people are delusional. We knew this wasn't going to go over as easy as it looked. With various tribes, religious sects, and even secularists in the nation, we knew the potential for certain problems. We have had problems keeping the oil production online as terrorists continued to target the one thing that could ensure Iraq's stability. They have targeted civilians to strike fear into the populace. The corruption spoken of I'm skeptical about. There are other reports I have seen and heard, especially from interviews with Ambassador Khalilzad, that the electricity is above it's pre-war point. The same goes for oil and water. The reconstruction aid that Mr. Kaplan cites as running out recently got another influx thanks to new appropriations coming from the Congress. I fail to see where Mr. Kaplan's arguments hold any water.
Kaplan tells of a student who, seeing insurgents preparing a mortar attack, called a government emergency number. Fortunately for him, no one answered. Later, friends warned him that callers' numbers appear at the government's emergency office and that they are sold to insurgents. The student took Kaplan to see a wall adorned with a picture and death announcement of a man whose call was answered.
Today, with all three components of the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq's political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
This last paragraph is the money quote. He cites all three members of the axis of evil, and I'm left wondering why. Iraq is no longer a part of this group. It has been liberated, has a stable constitution, and the people have voted for their freedom. A new, stable government is in place, and they are doing everything they can to bring their country back from the abyss it was wallowing in.
Meanwhile, in North Korea, Kim Jong-Il has been strangely silent lately. Either he has realized his saber rattling gets him nowhere other than the command from the free world, "Return to the six nation talks," or he has decided to keep his head down; content to continue his goal of creating more nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong. We should be keeping a close eye on North Korea. They are still a totalitarian regime under the command of a cruel dictator, and they are still a threat to their region. North Korea, however, is being addressed through diplomatic means. Of course, I'm not holding my breath. I'm positive that wihtin the next ten years, we will have a confrontation with North Korea.
Over in Iran, the madman at the helm isn't backing down from his threats or his fiery rhetoric. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Ahmadinejad is pursuing nuclear weapons. Today it's reported that they have begun negotiations with Russia over the enrichment program that the former superpower is offering to them. And, of course the accusations are flying from Iran that the US is trying to derail the talks. This is a man who is committed to wiping Israel from the face of the planet, has a terrorist army in Hezbollah working for his country, and believes he is the one to usher in the Islamic savior known as the mahdi. To say this man is a nut is to dismiss the danger. He is beyond insane; he is a zealot, and zealots--once engaged in a mission they believe to be righteous--can be very dangerous.
So, I agree with Mr. Will on his points regarding Iran and North Korea. They are still part of that axis, and still quite precarious. But I fail to see all of the problems he alludes to in Iraq. The facts simply aren't there. And the facts provided we can equate to talking points from those that wish to see Iraq fail. Those that have been over there--those we have heard interviews with, those that write about what is going on over there, and those that we have spoken with directly--all state that Iraq is right on course. Sure there will be stumbling blocks; one must learn to crawl and walk before they can run and jump. But in the course of history, Iraq--should it stay stable--should end up being a solid democracy in the region.
And no one can discount that the democratization of both Iraq and Afghanistan has led to other changes in the region. Egypt will allow challengers against Hosni Mubarak. Lebanon is working to reestablish itself as a democracy after finally driving Syria out. And Saudi Arabia is going to allow it's citizens (unfortunately not women) to vote in municipal elections. The road will be a long one to finally pacify this once unstable and volatile region, but it's one we have embarked on for the sole purpose of protecting our national interests abroad, and protecting the nation here.
Publius II
Not too long ago, Marcie went after George Will. Then, she slammed him for his attachment to Democrat talking points over the NSA Intercept program. Today, I'd like to address his newest column Rhetoric of Unreality.
When late in the spring of 1940 people of southeastern England flocked across the Channel in their pleasure craft and fishing boats to evacuate soldiers trapped on Dunkirk beaches, euphoria swept Britain. So Prime Minister Winston Churchill sternly told the nation: "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."
Or by curfews, such as the one that cooled the furies that engulfed Iraq after the bombing last week of a Shiite shrine. Wars are not won simply by facing facts, but facing them is a necessary prerequisite.
The curfew put in place was a smart move by the Iraqi government. The curfew was in response to violence breaking out over the Al Askari mosque bombing, and while many might have considered those embracing the violene as mere protesters, over one hundred forty people would have disagreed with that observation. Those would be the ones killed during these violent outbursts.
Last week, in the latest iteration of a familiar speech (the enemy is "brutal," "we're on the offensive," "freedom is on the march") that should be retired, the president said, "This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people." Meaning what? Who is to choose, and by what mechanism? Most Iraqis already "chose" -- meaning prefer -- peace. But in 1917 there were only a few thousand Bolsheviks among 150 million Russians -- and the Bolsheviks succeeded in hijacking the country for seven decades.
After Iraqis voted in December for sectarian politics, an observer said Iraq had conducted not an election but a census. Now America's heroic ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, one of two indispensable men in Iraq, has warned the Iraqi political class that unless the defense and interior ministries are nonsectarian, meaning not run as instruments of the Shiites, the United States will have to reconsider its support for Iraq's military and police. But that threat is not credible: U.S. strategy in Iraq by now involves little more than making the Iraqi military and police competent. As the president said last week: "Our strategy in Iraq is that the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."
True, we will stand down as the Iraqis take over more and more duties. However, I believe that Ambassador Khalilzad meant, by his statement, that the Shiites can't be the only ones in charge of the military and the police. To truly be a democracy, all must be represented at every level of the government. The overall fear of allowing a small group to run a major aspect of the government is that they may visit a vendetta on those that oppressed them in the past. Let's face facts here: While Iraq did indeed embrace democracy, there are still old wounds amongst the populace. Old habits are hard to break, and if allowed to fester, a sort of tyranny could emerge from areas within the government.
Iraq's prime minister responded to Khalilzad's warning by accusing him of interfering in Iraq's "internal affairs." Think about that, and about the distinction drawn by the U.S. official in Iraq who, evidently looking on what he considers the bright side, told Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, "This isn't a war. It's violent nation-building."
Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on its constitution, Iraq barely has a government. A defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. That attribute is incompatible with the existence of private militias of the sort that maraud in Iraq.
The militias within Iraq are a catch-22; they not only assist in ridding the country of al Zarqawi and his al Qaeda thugs, but they also serve as a thorn in the side of the fledgling government. This is an issue the Iraqis will have to work out on their own, much like we did after the Revolutionary War. What were we to do with the Minutemen? What of the militias that had served the nation, fighting for it's independence? Hamilton addresses the issue in Federalist #29:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?
Hamilton recognized the necessity of the militia, and scoffed at the idea that they, themselves, would be a danger to the Union. Likewise, the same argument could be made for the Iraqi militias. These people have turned over terrorists to our troops and to the Iraqi police/security units. They have also tipped off the authorities to the terrorists that have infiltrated their towns before. In fact, it was the Iraqis that tipped our forces off to where Saddam Hussein was hidden. Will there be some militias that may act "independently" of the government? Probably, however, for Mr. Will to cast them aside as a problem is foolish. Muqtada al Sadr was a problem, and after a reconciliation with the Iraqi provisional government, he was accepted "into the fold." And I'd like to remind everyone that is was al Sadr that called for an end to the violence surrounding the mosque bombing.
Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports that Shiite militias "have broken up coed picnics, executed barbers [for the sin of shaving beards] and liquor store owners, instituted their own courts, and posted religious guards in front of girls' schools to ensure Iranian-style dress." Iraq's other indispensable man, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, says that unless the government can protect religious sites, "the believers will."
As I just stated, there will be some bad apples. It is up to the Iraqis to either deal with them--breaking up their militia group--or putting them on a leash to control them. Their very actions that Mr. Will cites are violations of the Iraqi Constitution. And Ali Sistani is correct, and that may be what is necessary to protect the religious sites. This is an opportunity for the militias and Iraq's fledgling military; together they can work to secure the country. If the military is too busy getting the terrorists under control, the militia can protect the sites that require it. It is obvious by the tactics that are being used by the terrorists now that they are trying to incite a religious civil war. And after Ahmadinejad's rhetoric shortly after the mosque bombing, Iran should be considered a prime suspect behind that bombing. We know that Hezbollah has crossed from Iran into Iraq, and that Iran embraces them as a pseudo-shadow army. Does it not make sense that whoever did the bombing could have been acting on orders from Ahmadinejad?
When violence surges, if U.S. forces take the lead in suppressing it they delay the day when Iraqi forces will be competent. If U.S. forces hold back, they are blamed by an Iraqi population that is being infantilized by displacing all responsibilities onto the American occupation.
In the New Republic, Lawrence Kaplan, writing with a Baghdad dateline, says that only U.S. forces, which "have become an essential part of the landscape here -- their own tribe, in effect," can be "an honest broker" between warring factions, "more peacekeeper than belligerent." But he also reports:
"With U.S reconstruction aid running out, Iraq's infrastructure, never fully restored to begin with, decays by the hour. . . . The level of corruption that pervades Iraq's ministerial orbit . . . would have made South Vietnam's kleptocrats blush. . . . [C]orruption has helped drive every public service measure -- electricity, potable water, heating oil -- down below its prewar norm."
No one said that this was going to be easy. For people like Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Will who might have believed that we would establish a stable, secure government in the course of four years in Iraq, and that all would be well, you people are delusional. We knew this wasn't going to go over as easy as it looked. With various tribes, religious sects, and even secularists in the nation, we knew the potential for certain problems. We have had problems keeping the oil production online as terrorists continued to target the one thing that could ensure Iraq's stability. They have targeted civilians to strike fear into the populace. The corruption spoken of I'm skeptical about. There are other reports I have seen and heard, especially from interviews with Ambassador Khalilzad, that the electricity is above it's pre-war point. The same goes for oil and water. The reconstruction aid that Mr. Kaplan cites as running out recently got another influx thanks to new appropriations coming from the Congress. I fail to see where Mr. Kaplan's arguments hold any water.
Kaplan tells of a student who, seeing insurgents preparing a mortar attack, called a government emergency number. Fortunately for him, no one answered. Later, friends warned him that callers' numbers appear at the government's emergency office and that they are sold to insurgents. The student took Kaplan to see a wall adorned with a picture and death announcement of a man whose call was answered.
Today, with all three components of the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq's political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
This last paragraph is the money quote. He cites all three members of the axis of evil, and I'm left wondering why. Iraq is no longer a part of this group. It has been liberated, has a stable constitution, and the people have voted for their freedom. A new, stable government is in place, and they are doing everything they can to bring their country back from the abyss it was wallowing in.
Meanwhile, in North Korea, Kim Jong-Il has been strangely silent lately. Either he has realized his saber rattling gets him nowhere other than the command from the free world, "Return to the six nation talks," or he has decided to keep his head down; content to continue his goal of creating more nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong. We should be keeping a close eye on North Korea. They are still a totalitarian regime under the command of a cruel dictator, and they are still a threat to their region. North Korea, however, is being addressed through diplomatic means. Of course, I'm not holding my breath. I'm positive that wihtin the next ten years, we will have a confrontation with North Korea.
Over in Iran, the madman at the helm isn't backing down from his threats or his fiery rhetoric. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Ahmadinejad is pursuing nuclear weapons. Today it's reported that they have begun negotiations with Russia over the enrichment program that the former superpower is offering to them. And, of course the accusations are flying from Iran that the US is trying to derail the talks. This is a man who is committed to wiping Israel from the face of the planet, has a terrorist army in Hezbollah working for his country, and believes he is the one to usher in the Islamic savior known as the mahdi. To say this man is a nut is to dismiss the danger. He is beyond insane; he is a zealot, and zealots--once engaged in a mission they believe to be righteous--can be very dangerous.
So, I agree with Mr. Will on his points regarding Iran and North Korea. They are still part of that axis, and still quite precarious. But I fail to see all of the problems he alludes to in Iraq. The facts simply aren't there. And the facts provided we can equate to talking points from those that wish to see Iraq fail. Those that have been over there--those we have heard interviews with, those that write about what is going on over there, and those that we have spoken with directly--all state that Iraq is right on course. Sure there will be stumbling blocks; one must learn to crawl and walk before they can run and jump. But in the course of history, Iraq--should it stay stable--should end up being a solid democracy in the region.
And no one can discount that the democratization of both Iraq and Afghanistan has led to other changes in the region. Egypt will allow challengers against Hosni Mubarak. Lebanon is working to reestablish itself as a democracy after finally driving Syria out. And Saudi Arabia is going to allow it's citizens (unfortunately not women) to vote in municipal elections. The road will be a long one to finally pacify this once unstable and volatile region, but it's one we have embarked on for the sole purpose of protecting our national interests abroad, and protecting the nation here.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home