What The War Is About, And Why We Might Lose It
Democracy now, in Iraq. Well, maybe they'll have it sometime, maybe not, writes Thomas Friedman:
As the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum so rightly pointed out to me, "These so-called insurgents in Iraq are the real fascists, the real colonialists, the real imperialists of our age." They are a tiny minority who want to rule Iraq by force and rip off its oil wealth for themselves. It's time we called them by their real names.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.
Indeed, they haven't even bothered to tell us otherwise. They have counted on the fact that the Bush administration is so hated around the world that any opponents will be seen as having justice on their side. Well, they do not. They are murdering Iraqis every day for the sole purpose of preventing them from exercising that thing so many on the political left and so many Europeans have demanded for the Palestinians: "the right of self-determination."
What is terrifying is that the noble sacrifice of U.S. soldiers, while never in vain, may not be enough. We Americans may actually lose in Iraq. The vitally important may turn out to be the effectively impossible.
We may lose because of the wrong way that Donald Rumsfeld has managed this war and the cynical manner in which Dick Cheney, George W. 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 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.
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." 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."







War is peace. Love is hate. Tom Friedman is a journalist.
Some of the people fighting our troops are unsavory characters (or just plain killers), but a lot of them are motivated by nationalism, or hate Americans because so many of their family members have been killed. For Friedman to call these insurgents "the true colonists" would amaze even Orwell.
Shiite control isn't going to be like a Republican victory, because the purpose of this election is to write a constitution. Will Friedman be happy when the result looks a lot like the constitution of Iran, with Shiite clergy dictating government policy?
Joe Buck at December 29, 2004 7:36 AM