I am writing this at a time when the Iraqi elections are just
starting. The morning news said that overseas voting had already
begun in Australia. Voting in Iraq will begin on Sunday and by the
time anyone reads this, it will be over and we will know what
happened, how many voted and how many died.
I am writing this at a time when the Iraqi elections are just starting. The morning news said that overseas voting had already begun in Australia. Voting in Iraq will begin on Sunday and by the time anyone reads this, it will be over and we will know what happened, how many voted and how many died.
Whatever happens it will all be misinterpreted to support one political agenda or another. We will hear from the talking heads of television that it was worth it or that it was not, that we should pull our troops out of Iraq, or that they will be needed “until the Iraqi’s are ready to defend themselves.” We will continue to hear that President Bush and Condoleezza Rice “lied” to the country about the real reasons for the Iraq War and each analyst will have their own definition of the “real” reason, normally something that they can rail against.
To my mind, a few things are apparent. One of these is that no conspiracy in Washington is as good as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe. It is not as if conspiracies don’t exist. They do. And generally someone will leak the news to an accommodating reporter or post it in a BLOG. Maybe we are in trouble when self-published material from whatever source is viewed as “good information” while mainstream news outlets are viewed with suspicion.
I choose to believe our president when he talks about spreading democracy in the Middle East. I think that this has been the objective all along. The idea that democratic societies will not be a harbor to radical terrorists is appealing. Behind this is the concept that many of the other Middle Eastern relationships, including that between Israel and that Palestinians would be affected positively by the fact of a (small d) democratic Iraq.
I also find that there is an arrogance in the way that Americans think about foreign policy. It is always viewed from the perspective of the affect of our actions on America and never in terms of the effects it might have on other countries. Even the wording of the ever-present news polls about our involvement in Iraq measures the “worth” of that policy in terms of the number of American lives lost. It is never measured in terms of the effect that policy might have had on the Iraqi population.
In the long run, the answer to the question of whether or not it was “worth it” can never be answered by any American, only by the citizens of Iraq. History teaches us that history is written by the victors. It has ever been true and still is despite what PBS News Hour’s presidential historians would have us believe. Eventually, the victors in Iraq will write the history of these times from their own viewpoint.
If a democratic majority lifts a fundamentalist Shiite party to new-found power, that history might be very much a morality play with Sadaam Hussein and George Bush as opposing villains.
I don’t want to forecast the results of the election. It could be a resounding victory for democracy. It could be that only the Shiites and Kurds will vote and the Suni Arab Iraqi’s will stay away and that the country will dissolve into a civil war. While it matters a great deal how things turn out, American politicians will use the results for partisan advantage.
There is an arrogance in the way that the Bush administration has pushed the American ideal as a solution for all. I would rather that the American policy were to join in the search for a solution that works well enough for all. It is equally arrogant for Bush’s opponents, whether Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer or those of the most radical Indy Media to measure the value of our involvement in Iraq only in terms of American casualties.
I would hope that this country, having created the current situation in Iraq, would understand that there is a moral obligation to find a solution. President Bush may believe that the solution is to show our resolve and to “stay the course.” That may also mean that he is blind to other solutions that could have better results.
This country was so traumatized by the Iranian hostage crisis that there is still a great fear of an Islamic state arising anywhere else. For all of the wisdom of the Washington think-tank industry, they did not find the great differences between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. Their personal history is different. The basis of their support is different. Their preachings have been different.
But those who could not see past the word Ayatollah missed the chance to garner the support of the most influential figure in all of Iraq. It was true with the first Bush presidency and it was true with this one. A closer relationship with Ayatollah Sistani could conceivably have avoided the significant problems in Najaf, Carballa and Baghdad’s Sadr City area. Instead we listened to Ahmed Chalabi, an indicted financial manipulator who told our government what they wanted to hear.
The words of the old Kingston Trio – Pete Seeger song asked “When will they ever learn?” Rather it should have asked “When will WE ever learn?” When will we learn to see things as they are and not as we want them to be? When will we learn to measure the worthiness of our actions by the effects on others and not just on ourselves?
