Posted on 01/30/2004 7:14:33 AM PST by Tolik
If you want to bookmark his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-victordavishanson/browse
His NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Ok, I don't know the region and this may be a silly thought. However, the Kurds have long sought independence. Always, always this is said to be unacceptable to Turkey, Iraq, and Iran for the same reasons that Polish independence was, prior to 1918, unacceptable to Germany, Austria, and Russia. But we do not, at the moment, particularly care what Iran thinks, and partition may be the best option for Iraq. That leaves Turkey.
So: have the Turks a price? Or alternatively, what about a Kurdish autonomous region within Turkey? The Kurds would presumably want some sort of guarantees that the Turks would behave themselves, but this should be possible to arrange; this is not the 16th century anymore, at least in Turkey. So again: have the Kurds a price?
We are reminded daily not of the birth of the first consensual government in the history of the Arab world, but only that nine months after the military defeat of the Baathists, there is still resistance to the American reconstruction; and that the number of American soldiers, killed in major combat operations and afterward, has now surpassed 500.
Things in the Middle East are hard precisely because the stakes there are gargantuan. But so are the rewards: The sanctuaries and patrons of murderers, suicide bombers, and terrorists are shrinking with the destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Autocracies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are terrified of consensual government in Iraq precisely because they are aware of its implications for their own deprived citizens.
Meanwhile millions — from Libya and Pakistan to North Korea and Iran — watch intently. They wonder whether this new United States is about to run out of gas and return to the old appeasement of the last twenty years, [... or] is this new — and often unpredictable — United States going to completely change the rules of engagement, to prevent the conditions that would lead to another September 11?
We are winning a difficult peace. It is not surprising that we have made scores of mistakes, since nation rebuilding in the Middle East has no recent pedigree — not targeting and storming into the Sunni Triangle from the very beginning, distrusting and defaming competent and patriotic Iraqi exiles, allowing thousands to stream in from Iran, dismantling the Iraqi army and police, restraining Americans in war from harming vital infrastructure only to allow Iraqis to ruin it in peace, lax security on captured weapons caches, keeping Iraqis in the shadows while we spoke about their reform, and trying to create a political utopia when the avoidance of tyranny was our real chore.
Surely someone in the administration should have been explaining to the American people daily the historical nature of our victory, the critical issues now in play worldwide, and the humane nature of our sacrifice — if only to offer some counterweight to the monotonous negativism of National Public Radio, Nightline, the New York Times, and the Democratic contenders. Instead we have had mostly silence — reticence seen not as Olympian magnanimity, but rather as a sign of weakness that only emboldened critics and fueled the hysteria.
Yet throughout this tumultuous year, what amazes is not that we made errors, or major blunders even — but how quickly we reacted, adjusted, and learned from our mistakes. So we press on, learning as we go, combining power with justice, determined to leave behind something better than we found. We are comforted by knowing that for all the current yelling from Democratic candidates, our own intelligentsia, and the European mainstream, this has not been a war of conquest or exploitation, but something altogether different — a needed effort that, if we see it through, will end up doing a great deal of good for everyone involved.
Our efforts in Iraq to remove a genocidal murderer and inaugurate democracy are not a "quagmire," but one of the brightest moments in recent American history — and we need not be ashamed to say that, again and again and again.
Maybe they're smarter
than we give them credit for.
Maybe they look at
us, and realize
"consensual government"
gave us eight long years
of Clinton. Just think
what the "consensus" choice there
might put in office...
The US citizenry need only to hand more power to the Democrats to slip-slide into a self-phophesying reality. Dims injecting all this quagmire-type rhetoric directly translates to lost American lives. Treasonous!
HF
Well, my post was half
tongue-in-cheek, but the point stands --
democracy works
pretty much only
when citizens have schooling
and shared common goals.
In the Middle East,
the "masses" have no schooling,
and are so split up
in warring factions
that "common goals" seems to mean
they all want to kill.
I am just not sure
democracy can work well
with those citizens.
This is a major complaint of mine as well. The lack of eloquence, indeed the ongoing inarticulateness, in this administration is a critical flaw and a failure of leadership. Leaders must articulate the goals of the mission. It is a core function of the job. GWB, with certain exceptions in major policy addresses, just doesn't seem to have it in him to articulate his message day in and day out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.