So, one could be swayed to wonder why so many examples exist within the mainstream media depicting Zarqawi et al as insurgants, or militants, when neither their actions nor their goals represent an improved lifestyle for the vast majority of Iraqis. The most common interpretation is that the American "left" is in political opposition to George Bush, and any acknowledgement of his success could weaken the forces of opposition.
I think that's a touch simplistic, and I actually think it goes much deeper. The two most prominent philosophies in the world now can be reasonably accurately caricatured as Bush vs. the UN, even setting aside the amazing mound of evidence implicating Annan, Sevan et al in unprecedented fraud. The UN approach essentially assumes that the only means of enacting progressive change is through some form of miltilateral tolerance, and if that tactic fails (say Saddam Hussein or the Mullahcracy are still mean), then that means that there is, in fact, no solution at all. The Bush doctrine ignores that, and presumes that the failure of the diplomatic tactic simply indicates that more people need to be killed, and more things need to be broken.
If Iraq gets at all normalized, then the multilateralist theory has been disproven, and I think that it is the inability to see this potential that keeps the NYT fixated on the failures in Iraq, rather than the successes. I think they honestly cannot assimilate that progress might happen, when their worldview (expressed most ironically in the question of why we're in Iraq if we're not liberating ALL of the world's oppressed people, implying their relative comfort with inaction on that front) does not allow for such a possibility.
- Moishe Potemkin
Perhaps this point is too obvious to warrant mentioning, but perhaps not.
One of the objections voiced to the current operations in Iraq is that an attempt to introduce cultural innovation will most likely result in unanticipated backlash that could overwhelm the innovation. This is, I think, a reasonable argument (Repeat after me, libertarians: "The Law of Unintended Consequences") supporting the supposition that we are engendering some of the hostility depicted as an insurgency by just being there.
I think one aspect of this argument, often overlooked, is that we here in the Western world are embedded in our own culture, probably to the same extent. I most emphatically do not support government-enforced opposition to same-sex marriage, but the opposition itself is clearly a longstanding element of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (gratuitous political correctness, of course, but the Instarebbe wants us to be nice) culture that, as Samuel Huntingdon writes, defines much of the Western identity.
(He'd say insufficiently, I believe. Not having access to the breeding implied by his surname, I'd disagree the merits, but I'd agree with the facts.)
As such, even a reasonably well-intended effort to move America past its prejudices - before the society is prepared to move - is likely to not only fail, but it is likely to be perceived as a provocation, and to precipitate a backlash.
I don't think this is terribly novel, but I do think that it's true of me as well, and, in all likelihood, of the readers who chuckle to themselves when they see other people who appear to be willfully constrained by their own segment of society.
- Moishe Potemkin