When a distinctly different culture from a far away land endures decades of war, the horrid abuse of a strongman, and yet another decade of forced economic ruin; is then subjected to liberation and occupation by an overwhelming, ham-handed military power, the same which endorsed the economic ruin, and whose primary premise for invasion proves false, causing the better intentions of the occupying force to be doubted and opposed, and that force then fails miserably to plan for and prosecute the occupation, provide basics like water and electricity, while creating an unstable environment of terror and death worse than that of Israel/Palestine; it seems only fair to lower the bar of expectations on the spoonfed democracy the occupiers attempt to implement. So, how low do we go? What qualifies as success or failure in next week's brand new, bouncing baby democracy?
Chrenkoff has some insight into the mainstream media's subtle change of attitude, noting the hopeful and optimistic spin, and suggesting they may be hedging their bets. I don't care how the media covers the election for several reasons. Election day is a day, a big day, but just one day, nevertheless. Democracy is a 365 day a year endeavor, and this week's result will not completely answer the question of failure or success. It's never that simple. I've already predicted that CBS will pale at the horror, while Fox will sound the trumpets of victory. One will crawl around for the tragic while ignoring the positive; the other will discount the tragic while hailing the greatest achievement of freedom in this century. Yawn.
We could try to measure success by the fantasy-land promises of neoconservatism, but they're too undefined, long-term, subject to too much interpretation and backpedaling. The measuring stick has to be the hard predictions of the naysayers, pacifists, and realists, who said:
- The war in Iraq will not make us safer, and will spawn terrorism.
- We'll create and get caught up in an unnecessary civil war.
- Iraq will become a theocratic democracy opposed to the US.
There were other predictions from the anti-war lobby, some wrong, some right, but these three seem most critical, current and applicable. Other predictions involve long-term results, global opinion, geopolitical developments, and like neoconservative predictions, they remain intangible.
Study after study has validated the first prediction. We are not safer. The ranks of hatred, recruitment of terrorists, and scope of Islamic radicalism have all increased since the invasion. It's perhaps the transcendant failure of US "preventive war" policy, obvious in the short-term, and ominous in the long-term.
We may have already accomplished the second prediction. Finding ourselves immersed in a sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shia. We don't realize it, or more likely, we don't publicize it in honest terms, but we are fighting against the Sunni on behalf of the Shia, for the simple reason that the Sunni are fighting us. Arguably, the civil war prediction is not completely realized, and the 200,000 or so insurgents and their supporters may not represent or foment a full-fledged civil war that could involve millions of combatants. What affect elections have on the insurgency remains to be seen.
The third prediction-- us creating a theocratic government opposed to us-- is palpable with the coming elections. Who wins the election has as much to do with our success as having an election. It shouldn't be that way. A democracy should be a representation of the people, and that alone should be success. If after all this bloodshed, we helped create a government filled with hatred for us, not interested in doing business with us, fiercely opposed to Israel, aligning with other outposts of tyranny or anti-US interests, then that is indeed a failure in the war on terror.
So lowering the bar as far as possible, zero out of three is failure. The dissenters were right. Let's figure out who's the last man to die for a mistake and start the evacuation. That's the only sensible option if 1) terrorism is increasing, 2) a civil war breaks out, and 3) the new government is opposed to us.
One out of three, a government willing to work with us, or no civil war, is a modest success. With either situation we would be responsible for staying and either getting on with reconstruction or putting down the rebels.
Two out of three, a friendly government and no civil war, is worth celebrating. Three out of three? Too late. The anti-war crowd was right about pre-emptive invasion of Islamic lands leading to more hatred, terrorism, and less security, but we are increasing the bounty on bin Laden to 50 million, and have girded ourselves for decades of war. The unfortunate wrinkle for Iraq is regardless of right or wrong, it appears to be the base for the continuing war, whether that decision is of the people, by the people and for the people... or not.
--Zap
Comments