Crisis in Iraq

President Bush deplored the bombing of the Al-Askariya mosque in Samara as a senseless act. Sadly, the act was far from senseless as the intent of the bombers was almost certainly to foment civil war between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq. While the jury remains out whether the destruction of the holy site has succeeded in its terrible goal, there can be no doubt that that the issue is in doubt as this is being written.

That the president and his advisors, especially those labeled as neoconservative, were so naïve, gullible and ignorant of human relations and sociology as to believe that we could intervene in another civilization, Islam, and a nation cobbled together by power, Iraq, and impose our will and organization patterns without serious repercussions boggles the mind.

Even had we brought the hundreds of thousands of troops recommended by the army chief of staff as necessary to occupy the country there would be no easy way to disengage our forces and assure the survival of the government that we install. Despite all the trappings of democracy, most of them legitimate, how we could expect those forces opposed to us to accept that government makes us appear to be simpletons.

Islam is at war with itself across the region. Secular and religious forces are at odds in many parts of the civilization. Huge numbers of people with great resources are operating on both sides, and there are few signs that either side is willing to compromise. Yet President Bush was willing to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us or allies, except as imagined by those stirring a witches’ brew of poor and outdated intelligence, to topple its regime and to impose from the outside a system of government unacceptable to major power centers within the country and the civilization.

Even as we appear to make progress in our quest, we create enemies. It is calamitous that both Shiite and Sunni communities point the finger of blame for their problems straight at us and our coalition. And even if this crisis passes, there can be no doubt that others will occur. The government that comes to pass during America’s stay in Iraq will be tested for legitimacy by the various factions far into the future. Whether it will meet these tests cannot now be known, but it has to be seen that the enemies of the state do not ascribe legitimacy to it.

Mr. Bush compares the travails presently being endured by the Iraqis to those which tested the colonists in the late eighteenth century in America. That equation is sheer hog wash. We were testing to determine if men could best live relatively freely as a colony of nation far away or as an independent country. The relative rights, freedom, and obligations of the citizens under either organization were generally agreed upon by both sides.

In Iraq, the citizens do not agree on whether they should be governed by a secular system with agreed upon rights and responsibilities for all citizens or by a theocratic system of government. Whichever form prevails, the proponents of the other will be unlikely to be satisfied and are likely to resist. Throw in the wild card of international terrorists who do not recognize as legitimate many of the governments friendly to us in the region and you have the potential for instability in Islam for decades to come.

Millions of thoughtful people around the globe, including a huge number in the United States, foresaw these problems of the intervention in Iraq. Sadly, they did not have the ear of the one man who counted, George W. Bush.

Even if this crisis passes without failure, it is likely that the new government will have enemies on all sides. Now Mr. Bush deplores what he sees as a new form of isolationism arising in the United States and rails against it. Sadly, it has come about because of his adventurist policies across the globe. Clearly, he is reaping what he sowed. Unfortunately, the nation will be undoing this neoconservative Wilsonian foolishness for many years.

Sad!

Blog on!

Wild Bill