I don't know if there are too few troops in Iraq, and if there are, I don't know why that is the case. As usual, Andrew Sullivan attributes it to the president's hubris, and, heck, for all I know, he's right.
I did want to propose an alternative thought, though. Americans seem to view the Iraq effort through the lens of Vietnam, and, for those steeped in history, possibly as an analog to World War II. The Muslim world has a far longer historical perspective, aided at least in part by the refusal of authoritarian governments to allow the modernizing world to enter.
This war is a big deal, then, and it will be viewed as an historic event for decades, simply because that is how the Muslim world views such events. They might not always get the facts right, but the roots run deep, and evolution in that sort of cultural milieu takes some time. (A related point is to scoff at those worried that it's already been 18 months, by golly, and Iraq hasn't nearly transformed itself into New Hampshire yet.)
Anyhow, it is probably quite important, in this context, to allow the Iraqis the dignity of liberating themselves, even at the horrible cost in human lives that has already been paid, and will continue to be exacted by Zarqawi and his henchmen in coming weeks and months. Based upon the continued presence of recruitment lines at Iraqi police stations, the people are rising to the task, which is quite a promising sign.
It would be nice if their culture was as plastic as that which prevails in the West, but it isn't. Pretending that it is - by handing them a victory, rather than forcing them to fight for it on their own - risks further embedding the past few decades of Ba'athist-driven humiliation into their collective identity, which is unlikely to have the desired outcome of reconciliation with modernity, equal rights, and capital markets.
One of the comments early in my blogging life observed that my outlook was realistic, and probably the more depressing for it. I recognize that, but it seems to me that these cold-blooded calculations that, if ignored, will upset all of the hopeful theory otherwise supporting the Middle East makeover.
A last point. It has become de rigueur for the intellectualist-libertarian set (your humble correspondent certainly included) to include some sort of criticism of the state of chaos in Iraq, lest they be confused for the troglodyte Republicans living in flyover country that actually think the president is swell. While I think that using the Iraqi people as bait to attract the terrorists is yet another example of, well, cold-bloodedness, the point remains that these folks would not otherwise be spending their time reading to the blind, or tending to their Bonsai. So they flow in over the Syrian border, and we dispatch them with some sort of regularity, but not enough to keep them from coming into Baghdad, and they don't come in to Arizona. Again, cold, but apparently effective.
- Moishe Potemkin
I don't really think Bush is going to be re-elected (remind me some time to bore you with my screed about how people are overwhelmingly emotional beings with but a flicker of reason running through them), but if he is, then look for either Joe Lieberman or Richard Gephardt to get the nod as Secretary of State.
Whatever else this election has shown, it has demonstrated that we are rapidly approaching the fracture point as a country, and without drastic action to "reach across the aisle," the violence may well get bumped up a notch beyond tearing signs away from three-year-olds, or shooting holes through political offices.
I could be wrong, but it strikes me as somewhat peculiar that neither of the two grown-ups running for the Democratic nomination have been terribly public of late, in spite of the fact that as real adults, they would have had considerable appeal to the sacred Undecideds.
- Moishe Potemkin
One would think it obvious. Right now, in the world, there is a loose aggregation willing to, among other things, shoot terrified children in the back, either as a means to some other end, or as an end in itself. If the concept of civilization means anything at all, it means stopping the people that do this sort of thing.
And yet, there is no consensus to do this.
I do not agree with Jonah Goldberg's contention that the sole or primary motivation against tackling Islamist terror head-on is the narrow political implication of supporting a Republican effort. I know too many intelligent opponents of the war to accept that premise.
I think, rather, that it reflects an entire worldview in which it is assumed that world events dictate events to a greater extent than individual will. In this instance, this translates into the assumption that Islamist militarism is a response to various American actions, and that the appropriate means of dealing with this response is to cease the stimuli.
I suspect that this worldview is probably true to a limited extent, but I think that individuals are actually more capable than this system implies. More to the point, I think that Kerry sincerely believes this, and that he will act accordingly, which is why I am supporting Bush.
(I could be more poetic, but my throat hurts, and I want some tea. If I'm unclear, let me know.)
- Moishe Potemkin
Let's leave aside the silly stuff, and focus on this issue. One of the differences between the candidates in this election is the question of balancing concerns over doing "the right thing" when there does not appear to be global political support for such activities. So here goes an analysis.
Objections to "doing the right thing" (as an example, surely turning Saddam to dust, viewed solely on its own, is a net positive) are either practical (i.e., having global political support implies a greater chance of success in the activity undertaken) or theoretical (i.e., having global political support confers a measure of legitimacy to the activity undertaken).
The practical concerns seem overstated - criticisms of the performance to date (To date? How long should it take to redirect 25 million people?) typically center on the fact that America is being less forceful than it should. Considering that the U.S. Army could turn the entire land mass between Austria and India into a smooth sheet of glass, it seems as though the exercise of force is being balanced against concerns over the ill-will likely to be generated among the occupees. Having insufficient manpower, on the other hand, does not appear to be a credible complaint.
Moving to theoretical issues, and sidestepping the obvious snideness that typically (and accurately, I might add. However, this is one of those blogposts in which I adopt a mature, 'balanced' tone in the hopes of one day being considered the Jewish and electronic version of David Broder) results from evaluating whether the survey of world opinion represented by the United Nations actually represents some sort of moral advance, as opposed to an incessantly repeated depiction of Piggy's murder in The Lord of the Flies. Let's also leave aside the accumulating evidence of financial partiality among certain members of the U.N. Security Council whose opposition to the war in Iraq prevented it from being multifariously multilateral.
Any criticism of the attack on Iraq starts with the premise that, in fact, one Turtle Bay member, considered to be in at least reasonably good standing, wanted to do something that other members thought ill-advised. Stated elsewise, sometimes nations have differing opinions about what constitutes appropriate action, and if one is willing to accept that possibility, then one can no longer ascribe much value to an international consensus.
- Moishe Potemkin
Well, it's good if the target of your ire is Saudi Arabia, the world's leading disseminator of the disturbingly violent philosophy known as Wahhabi-ism, and you can't attack them without preparing an alternate source of oil, and you need a nice, friendless country with all sorts of oil that you can, shall we say, adopt.
- Moishe Potemkin