Thoughts on Iraq

In the four months I've had this blog, I've written about Iraq only once. This is not because I don't have strong opinions about the war, or because the war is unimportant; indeed, I believe that the outcome of the war is the most momentous issue of our time, and that its strategic and political consequences will reverberate for decades. Rather, I've mostly avoided the subject because I do not want to fall into the 24-hour news cycle trap of commenting on every single happening in Iraq, as if trends that take decades to fully develop could be discerned by a myopic focus on individual, tactical attacks. The true test of success in Iraq (and most of the media will never understand this) can only be measured many years from now.

I have supported the war since the very beginning, when it was only a rumor. In the aftermath of 9/11, I believed that the combination of political repression, anti-American sentiment, and suspected WMD stocks and terrorist links epitomized by Saddam's barbarous regime was too great a threat to ignore. When some would say that Saddam was no threat, and was not possibly foolish enough to attack the United States either overtly or covertly, I countered that it was far too dangerous to trust the restraint and strategic judgement of a man who had historically shown very little of either. The war against Islamic terrorism, I believed, could only be won if the region which cultivated its murderous ideology was provided a new form of government, one that would provide a political recourse to violent extremism.

Three years later, I haven't changed my mind. Now most of the media coverage of Iraq is focused on the difficulties of writing a constitution for a state beset by ethnic rivalries. Four years ago, if you were told that in 2005 Saddam would be facing trial for war crimes, and that elected Iraqi representatives would be haggling over a new constitution to enshrine the rule of law over the rule of the torture chambers and rape rooms, you would probably hail this is as a good--indeed, a miraculous--turn of events. But such perspective is in short supply these days.

Even with the stakes so high, most of the coverage of the Iraq war has been excruciatingly shallow, devoid of any semblance of historical perspective. Never before in history has the press had such an obsessive fixation with reporting bad news during wartime. While every American and civilian casualty in Iraq is undoubtedly a tragedy, by historical standards, the casualty rates are the among the lowest of any military engagement of any nation in history. Even World War II would have been difficult to fight with hysterical media ignoring good news and celebrating the bad.

Here in the traditionally slow news month of August, the media have found their annual diversionary story: Cindy Sheehan, the enraged mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq last year. Mrs. Sheehan has been camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch for several weeks, demanding to know why "Bush killed my son." Although Bush met with her and her family a year ago, she says she will not leave until Bush meets with her a second time. Seeing an opportunity to rekindle the nostalgia of the Vietnam protest days, Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and all the other anti-war groups have rallied to her cause.

If President Bush granted her request for another meeting, I don't think it would be the end of the world. If handled correctly, it could even be a good opportunity to re-enforce public support for the war. But while no one is disputing Mrs. Sheehan's right to protest the war in which her son died, it would be a mistake to assume she speaks for her son. All the available evidence suggests otherwise. Casey Sheehan voluntarily enlisted in the Army in 2000, and then re-enlisted in August 2003, five months after the invasion of Iraq. Apparently Casey believed there was a noble cause worth fighting for in Iraq, even if his mother does not. Casey was killed in Sadr City, during a rescue mission for which he had personally volunteered. One year later, Sadr City, once a haven for the insurgency, is now one of the safest areas of Baghdad. Casey Sheehan's death was not in vain, despite what those who claim to speak for him now say.

Mrs. Sheehan and her opportunistic supporters have demanded that Bush bring "America's children" home immediately. Their word choice is deeply ironic, and revealing of the mindset behind some of the more vehement protestors. When leftists are not portraying our troops as bloodthirsty goons, they are portraying them as helpless children. They are neither. Once again, the Left's fundamental disrespect of those who serve in the military is obvious.

One of the anti-war crowd's favorite lines is, "If the cause is so noble, President Bush, then why don't you send your daughters to fight?" Never mind that Jenna and Barbara Bush are adults now, and can make their own career choice. Since it doesn't look like the Bush twins will be heading off to Iraq anytime soon, that, the thinking goes, makes Bush's war policy illegitimate.

Ah yes, the "chickenhawk" charge--the "yo momma" of anti-war comebacks. This tired old argument has seen a revival of late, as Cindy Sheehan, by virtue of her son's sacrifice, has been decreed by the anti-war crowd and much of the "mainstream" media to be above reproach, no matter how outlandish her statements. The logic, such as it is, of the accusation is simple (and simplistic): Unless you or a loved one has served on the front lines, you have no right to support the war. But the protestors don't even follow their own logic, because they refuse to extend the same absolute moral authority bequeathed to Mrs. Sheehan to military families who support the war. It could be because if military families--who tend to be more conservative--were permitted to be the sole arbitors of the morality of the Iraq war, the celebrators of Mrs. Sheehan would almost certainly find themselves in the minority. Or it could just be because they are sophists, and will grab any anti-war argument that comes along, no matter how logically lacking or baldly demagogic.

What is the noble cause in Iraq? It is the goal of bringing the global democratic revolution to the one region of the world that has been most resistant to it. Representative governance in the Middle East is the not the magic potion that will rid the world of Islamic terrorism, but by creating an outlet for radicalism to be vented politically, rather than through violence, it will do much to create the conditions of compromise and open debate that will, in turn, prompt the soul-searching so desperately needed in the Muslim world. Indeed, in places like Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Gaza and the West Bank, there are indications that this internal debate between authoritarian regimes and domestic reformers has already begun. Encouraging this movement is in America's strategic and security interests, and that is why the cause in Iraq is--unequivocally and unmistakably--a noble one.