 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
December 18, 2006
Losing the War, as Well as the Battle
It's relatively easy these days to point out all the ways in which George W. Bush has been ill-informed, misguided and wrong about Iraq. And in case you run out of examples, the president provides fresh ones continually. But on one central issue, Bush has been right. He has argued from the start that a modern, liberal democratic Iraq would be an example, an inspiration and a spur for progress in the Middle East. The trouble is, the Iraq of today is having precisely the opposite effect. If Bush wants to save his freedom agenda, he needs to decouple it from Iraq.
For all his intellectual shortcomings, Bush recognized that the roots
of Islamic terror lie in the dysfunctions of the Arab world. Over the
last 40 years, as the rest of the globe progressed economically and politically,
the Arabs moved backward. Decades of tyranny and stagnation-mostly under
the auspices of secular, Westernized regimes like those in Egypt and Syria-have
produced an opposition that is extreme, religiously oriented and, in some
cases, violent. Its ideology is now global, and it has small bands of
recruits from London to Jakarta. But at its heart it is an Arab phenomenon,
born in the failures of that region. And it is likely only to be cured
by a more open and liberal Arab culture that has made its peace with modernity.
Look for example at two non-Arab countries, Malaysia and Turkey, whose
people are conservative and religious Muslims. Both places are also reasonably
successful economies, open societies and functioning democracies. As a
result, they don't produce swarms of suicide bombers.
Iraq after Saddam presented a unique opportunity to
steer history on a new course. But instead the Bush administration drove
it into a ditch. As a result, the effort to create an Iraqi model for
the Middle East has failed. No matter what happens over the next year
or two, the country has developed into more of a warning about the dangers
of democracy than a symbol of its promise. When people around the world-and,
most important, in the region-look at Iraq, they see chaos, religious
extremism and violence.
Donald Rumsfeld frequently says, as he did again in
his last appearance at the Pentagon, that if you were to "fly over"
Iraq as he does, you would see that the violence is greatly exaggerated.
In fact, were Rumsfeld to have dared to brave the roads of Iraq-as reporters
do every day-he would have discovered that the reverse is true.
The Iraq Study Group report - which Rumsfeld boasts
he has not really read - points out that "there is significant underreporting
of the violence in Iraq ... A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted
as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack,
that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a
rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count.
For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant
acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that
single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
Now look at the "safe" areas. The south
of the country, which the administration claims is stable, is run by fanatical
religious parties, militias and street gangs, most of whom impose Iranian-style
restrictions on people's rights and liberties. For minorities (like Christians)
and for women, the new Iraq has been one of persecution and punishment.
In many Sunni areas in the center of the country, a Taliban-style puritanism
is being enforced. Amid the chaos, the groups that can provide security
tend to be the most thuggish and extreme in their political views. And
wherever there are mixed populations-throughout Iraq's cities-a gruesome
campaign of ethnic cleansing has produced hundreds of thousands of internal
refugees. Almost 2 million Iraqis-8 percent of the population-have fled
the country entirely.
In the wake of this "model," not a single
Arab regime feels any pressure to reform. They say to their people, "Do
you want a democracy like they have in Iraq?" (The refrain echoes
beyond the region. Vladimir Putin makes the same point in Russia, to justify
his own usurpations of power.) Look around. The Saudi royals are stronger
than ever. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has jailed his opponents. The Syrian
regime, once troubled, is more confident. Iran is ascendant. And the United
States has become radioactive. Were America to come out in favor of clean
water, we would find people opposed in the Arab world today.
George W. Bush needs to understand that he now has to choose between Iraq and his broader Middle East project. Only by realizing that Iraq has gone awry and reducing America's involvement there can he credibly push a different, more incremental reform in other countries. If, instead, he insists on digging deeper in Iraq, America's war will drown out all else. For the sake of his own freedom agenda, President Bush must move beyond Iraq.
