Discussing the impending remake of the Middle East, Mark Steyn makes what seems, to me, a rather apt analogy:
So America, in returning to Iraq 12 years on, is embarking on its boldest gamble in decades--a new Middle Eastern domino theory that says the liberation of Iraq is the best way to reform Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and beyond. Yes, it's a long shot, but in this discussion it's the fellows who insist you can never implant Western concepts like the rule of law and economic activity who are being the simpletons. The modern ''Middle East'' is an Anglo-French invention that they never had time to complete: They're like Baron von Frankenstein interrupted in his lab while he's still fine-tuning the formula and chased off by the excitable burghers, leaving the monster to break free of his shackles and stagger off down the hill to terrorize the village. But, even as a failed and prematurely abandoned experiment, certain distinctions can be observed: A rough rule of thumb is that the least worst countries in the region are those which were most Britannicized. The continuing ''moderation'' (comparatively) of Jordan and the Gulf emirates is essentially the enduring legacy of the Colonial Office. Were Iraq to be restored to its 1950s condition as a ramshackle Hashemite backwater, that in itself would constitute an almighty improvement in a part of the world that could certainly use some. Writing about last year's Arab League summit, Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post noted that if Zimbabwe's election-fixing strongman Robert Mugabe had shown up, he's have been the most democratically legitimate leader in the room.No one knows what regional ''reform'' will look like down the road. The odds are not good. But they're better than the certainty of disaster that another couple of decades of Baathism, Wahhabism, Hamas and the Ayatollahs will bring. When the most prominent Saudi trust-fund baby is Osama bin Laden and the most famous middle-class Egyptian is Mohammed Atta and the only example of Arab pluralism is a Christian deputy prime minister of Iraq who enjoys gassing Kurds and lobbing Scuds at Israel as much as his Muslim masters do, one thing is sure: The status quo is not an option.
More Steyn goodness here:
But on the opening weekend of Gulf War II Tariq Aziz was silent. Even though perking up Svend and Co. is far more critical to Baghdad's strategy this time round, Iraq's Mister Available isn't returning his messages. He hasn't been seen since last Wednesday when some curiously timed rumours were floated that he'd either defected or been shot in the attempt. Saddam ordered him to go on TV and deny it. He did, and then left the studios to go to a meeting of the inner council. The meeting was broken up in the early hours of Thursday morning when the Pentagon dropped a bunker-buster on it.We don't know for sure who was inside and who got out. But an awful lot of Baghdad's A-list crazies seem to have cut back on their personal appearances since, oh, Thursday a.m. It could be that the marked lack of command-and-control coming from the Iraqi capital is due to technical problems. But, on the other hand, look at the depraved video al-Jazeera was airing all weekend of Iraqi captors flaunting their American prisoners -- some alive, some dead and bearing marks of execution rather than war wounds. Saddam's hardcore thugs were able to round up their POWs, get out the camcorder, murder them, defile their corpses and get the footage from a relatively remote part of the country to the studio while the blood was still warm on the dungeon floor. As with the Daniel Pearl execution tape vis-ŕ-vis Osama, it invites the question: If they can do this, where's the boss? The speed of this revolting production suggests that, if the Iraqi leadership aren't making video appearances, it's not because of technical difficulties, it's because they're not in a condition to be filmed.
and
We'll know in the coming days just who was in that building and who survived. But, if "America's assassination attempt" (as BBC announcers sneeringly call it) was even partially successful, Washington will have changed the dynamic of rogue-state relations. When Jean Chrétien told reporters in Mexico that you can't just go around removing leaders you don't like, one assumes he meant it at least in part as a matter of practical possibility -- the human cost of taking out the butchers is too great, the civilian casualties too high. Dictators from Kim Jong-Il to Robert Mugabe rely on that argument.But, if it emerges that Washington effectively disabled the entire leadership on Thursday morning, that the first casualty of the war was a Mr. S. Hussein of Baghdad, well, that's an awfully cautionary tale for Kim and Co. America will have invented not the neutron bomb but the neuron bomb: They'll have shown they're capable of disconnecting the regime's nervous system while leaving everything else standing -- bridges, hospitals, men, women, children. If I were M. Chirac or one of those other fellows who think the real threat to the world is American hegemony, I'd be longing for a reassuring call from Saddam. Otherwise, that North Korean crisis is going to go very differently.
Robert Bartley, while celebrating the imminent liberation of Iraq, helpfully discusses the many failures that brought us here, from Clinton's apparent lack of resolve to G. H.W. Bush's fear of bad press and muddled initial messages, and concludes:
The lesson of this second Iraqi war is that the U.S. cannot afford an on-again, off-again attention span, whether from fear of "quagmires" or notions of Realpolitik. Withdrawal of American power creates a vacuum into which forces of instability flow. History has thrust the U.S. into peacekeeping; its elites now have to learn to do it without having to bust up the same real estate every dozen years or so.
David Pryce-Jones discusses the potential post-war problems that Iraq's many religious/ethic group conflicts might pose, and suggests a solution:
There is only one force that has the power to guarantee that disputes in Iraq are resolved without violence. That force is the American army. American military power can prevent Iraq from sliding into anarchy, as it has prevented civil war from breaking out in Afghanistan since the removal of the Taliban regime, protecting Mohammed Karzai - who is committed to peaceful politics - from the warlords, who are not.The Americans can ensure that only peaceful procedures are used in Iraq. But to do so, they will have to use their power subtly, indeed almost invisibly. It would be a terrible blunder if the Americans try to act as an adjudicator in Iraq's religious and political disputes, deciding who will get which of the spoils of war. If the Americans start to be perceived as meddling in Iraq's internal politics, the result will undo any possible good that might have come from removing Saddam.
Finally, Peggy Noonan discusses the many benefits that will accrue from a victory over Hussein's bloody regime. Excerpts:
Another thing, and a crucially important one. The United States is showing to the world, to its friends and foes, that it will pay a high price to make the world better. We will put it all on the line. This country is, still, the place that will take responsibility when no one else will. In this our entire country is like the firemen of 9/11 who looked up, saw the burning towers and charged. In the past few days, weeks and months, America charged. It has a lot to be proud of. (Being America it will soon be beating itself up again, but it should take some time over the next few weeks to feel the healthy pride it's earned.)
and
A victory in Iraq is about to enhance America's stature in the world. America deserves it. Because of all the powerful countries in the world, it is the most trustworthy, reliable and constructive. Soon this war will be over. It was hard getting there, hard doing it and there will no doubt be hard going. But it will be over, and we won't come back from hell with empty hands. We will have won a great deal. In the next week and weeks it will be good to keep that in mind, and keep our eyes on the prize.Posted by oscarjr at March 24, 2003 11:11 PM | TrackBackWe have 2.7 million members of the active and reserve American armed forces today. The world owes a great deal to America, and America owes a great deal to them, and not only because of their courage but because of their faith in us. And they have faith in us, and in this place we all live in, this great country, or else they would never risk their lives for us. Which leaves us humbled, and wishing we could say to them what the world should be saying to the country they represent: Thank you.
