Iraq: Getting Over Antipathy To The Invasion

If you missed Tom Friedman's Op-Ed piece on December 23, as I did, please take this opportunity to read it. And contrast this with Maureen Dowd's piece from the same day. Note to Maureen: As much as I enjoy your Bush bashing, maybe it's time to move on? As I asked Yuval in yesterday's post: Isn't it time to stop telling everyone what you are against and start telling people what you are for?

Friedman does this, and in so doing, makes a couple of points that those of us who despise the Bush Administration need to think about.

However this war started, however badly it has been managed, however much you wish we were not there, do not kid yourself that this is not what it is about: people who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for. . . .

As is so often the case, the statesman who framed the stakes best is the British prime minister, Tony Blair. Count me a "Blair Democrat." Mr. Blair, who was in Iraq this week, said: "Whatever people's feelings or beliefs about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the wisdom of that, there surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror. On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq."

I do not agree with Friedman that preventing elections -- or more broadly democracy -- is "all the insurgents stand for." The motivations of the insurgents are doubtless numerous and complex and at least one of those motivations is almost certainly simple opposition to the occupation of their country by a foreign (in every possible sense of that word) power. But, I do agree with what I take to be the main point: No matter how wrong you think the invasion was to begin with, we cannot afford to lose the resulting struggle. There is way too much at stake -- not just for the Iraqis, but for us. Somehow, some way, we have to find a path that leads to a stable, tolerant government in Iraq.

Friedman's other point is that we stand a very good chance of failing in this effort, and that this outcome is made even more likely by the inability of opponents of the war to get over that opposition and move on toward finding a path out of the mess:

What is terrifying is that the noble sacrifice of our soldiers, while never in vain, may not be enough. We may actually lose in Iraq. The vitally important may turn out to be the effectively impossible.

We may lose because of the defiantly wrong way that Donald Rumsfeld has managed this war and the cynical manner in which Dick Cheney, George Bush and - with some honorable exceptions - the whole Republican right have tolerated it. Many conservatives would rather fail in Iraq than give liberals the satisfaction of seeing Mr. Rumsfeld sacked. We may lose because our Arab allies won't lift a finger to support an election in Iraq - either because they fear they'll be next to face such pressures, or because the thought of democratically elected Shiites holding power in a country once led by Sunnis is anathema to them.

We may lose because most Europeans, having been made stupid by their own weakness, would rather see America fail in Iraq than lift a finger for free and fair elections there.

Again, I find some of the rhetoric in this -- e.g. that the Europeans have been made stupid by their own weakness -- to be more than little over the top. But, again, as well, the essential point seems to me to be correct: Those of us, in the US, in Europe and in the Arab world who despise the Bushies for creating this mess, have got to "get over it" and move on. I am not suggesting we need to forgive or forget. Far from it, for the sake of the future, the Bushies have to be held accountable for a reckless, entirely unnecessary, and perhaps even criminal war. But, holding them accountable is not the same thing as hoping that they fail or standing by idly as Iraq descends into the darkness into which Afghanistan fell following the equally stupid invasion of that country by the Russians.

Update: The contrast between Afghanistan and Iraq just keeps getting more obvious. See "Afghan Runner-Up to Form Opposition Party" . Here's an excerpt:

The runner-up to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan's presidential elections congratulated Mr. Karzai on Saturday on the formation of his cabinet, but said he was in the process of forming an opposition political party.

Yunus Qanooni, the runner-up in the election, said he had deep respect for the cabinet ministers and for Mr. Karzai. But he said he felt he could best serve the nation by becoming a leading opposition figure.He said he would call the party New Afghanistan, and said it would be created in the coming weeks.

"We will support any positive steps taken by the government, but if they do something wrong, we will raise our voices and we will struggle against that," Mr. Qanooni said. "What is important is to resolve our differences through politics. We are no longer living in a time of war."

It is far too early to declare victory in Afghanistan, of course, but the news from there continues to at least be news of progress. What is the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq? In the near term, it seems to me to be obvious: a just vs. an unjust war; international cooperation and support vs. international opposition and antipathy. In the longer term, though, maybe, just maybe, the answer is "nothing". Maybe, just maybe, Afghanistan raises at least the prospect that improvement -- even success -- might be possible even in Iraq.

The contrast between these two wars will be a fascinating topic for future historians. I hope I live long enough to see those histories written.