On the Right side of History.

September 26, 2003, 8:39 a.m.
On the Right Side of History
The hard truth won't go away

At the end of this summer of our discontent, an array of Democratic presidential hopefuls, along with a number of restless pundits, are seeking to reclaim credibility after their mistaken prognoses about the Afghan and Iraqi wars. These critics now claim that we are in a Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq and have become estranged from the rest of the world on a variety of fronts from the West Bank to the United Nations.

Nothing could be further from the truth, which is immune to spin from both ends of the political spectrum. The facts themselves will not go away, and thus it is more likely that critics (quietly and without fanfare) will soon come over to the U.S. position, rather than vice versa — albeit on the cheap and at the eleventh hour.

For all the harping, postbellum Iraq and Afghanistan offer hope; the Taliban and Saddam Hussein certainly did not. The world knows the United States is promoting liberal government and that gangsters — whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on the West Bank — are opposing it. Choosing between the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment is not difficult even for the French, especially when someone else pays and dies.

The Iraqi people are sensing one party is blowing up its pipelines and roads, and one is protecting and rebuilding them. That is why even in the middle of postbellum chaos, in a recent Gallup poll almost 70 percent of Iraqis thought things were far better now than under Saddam. For all the media hysteria, the American people will accept that in history's terrible arithmetic of conflict, the United States achieved an historic victory at an historic minimum of lives lost — and improved both its own security and gave hope for 50 million in the Middle East.

Saddam Hussein has been relegated to the status of the Serbian outlaws Karadzic and Mladic. It would be nice to catch such state criminals — and we will — but democratic reform goes on while they live on in the shadows, like empty wraiths shrieking and plotting despite their lack of flesh and blood.

For all the criticism about warlords, it is now likely that Afghanistan will never again be turned over to al Qaeda to train thousands to conduct the type of murder we saw on September 11. For all real problems with ambushes and sabotage, there will be no more gassings, mass murdering, invading neighbors, sending guided missiles across borders or no-fly zones in Iraq, but rather the hard work of consensual government — a difficult process easily caricatured, but when completed universally admired.

Mullah Omar can never give a press conference again. The quality of bin Laden's supposedly authentic videos goes from bad to worse. A tape that once earned a red alert now is the stuff of lame jokes on late-night television. Soon even Clintonites will no longer boast about once keeping bin Laden or Saddam in his "box."

We are not the only ones who know all of this. The German government realizes that these radical changes will prove for the universal good. For all of its election-inspired anti-American rhetoric last year, Germany accepts that the United States is not colonizing Iraq or siphoning off its oil, but rather spending billions of its own money, after a risky military operation, to help the Iraqi people — whether bringing water back to the Marsh Arabs, federalism to the Kurds, or respect and dignity to the Shiites.

Those facts cannot be spun and will not go away: American soldiers stationed in Iraq are no more exploitative than those in Germany, but are instead there to keep the peace and provide security, just as once they saved the Germans from themselves, and then kept the Russian bear out of Munich and Hamburg.

This truth, deep down, the Germans accept, and it explains why, for all of his prevarication, Mr. Schroeder knows that he is on the wrong side of history in his dispute with the United States. He is just now starting to sense that it is the American public, not a neoconservative cabal, that feels something is amiss with the transatlantic relationship, which from trade to defense largely benefited the Europeans.

If Mr. Schroeder is not careful, in a year from now there will be very few American troops in Germany; his socialist government will be faced with spending billions for its own security, with a piqued United States that for once will not so readily come to Germany's aid in its inevitable hour of crisis; Iraq will enjoy a consensual government despite German opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein; and France will be Berlin's chief and perhaps only major ally. Ditto on a smaller scale for tagalongs like Belgium and Greece.

The French may even cease their overt opposition, not from appreciation that what the United States did in Iraq is for the long-term good of the world, but from a reality check provided by the last few months, which have not been as good for them as they think. There are cracks in the European Union, and the idea of choosing France over the Americans is odious even for most Europeans. Triangulating may for the moment play well in the Middle East, but ultimately Arabs will accept that the United States, not a harping France, risked so much to liberate Iraq. And when 10,000 of its own elderly citizens expired in their apartments while millions lounged at the beach, French claims of moral and political singularity were exposed as a fraud. And France, remember, traffics in images, not power.

So France, too, risks being an observer while the greatest democratic experiment of the age goes on in Iraq, isolated from the United States, which may well reconsider its clandestine support for France that so often facilitated Gallic military adventures abroad in Africa and elsewhere. A democratic, prosperous — and lucrative — Iraq is only in France's interest, especially when someone else risked the blood and treasure to achieve it.

We never did like going it alone in Iraq, but there is also a growing
sense by both supporters and critics here that we are in essence going it alone
nonetheless — and won't stop until the democratic reconstruction of
Iraq is complete. For France and Germany — who gave no material or military support, but offered much overt hostility — there grows the realization that when we are done in Iraq, we might be in a sense done with both of them as well — a liberating, not a depressing, thought for millions of Americans. Demographic problems, statism, anti-democratic trends of the EU, failure to assimilate immigrants, pacifism and a disarmed continent, and intellectual bankruptcy and Pavlovian anti-Americanism among an elite — all that and more will be for them to handle in the decades to come.

Mr. Bush has been criticized for isolating Yasser Arafat. But the latter is someone whose enmity you welcome. The Europeans may give him a pass on his stealthy financial and emotional subsidies for Hamas and related killers, but they won't forgive his near-billion dollars in a private bank account. Killing Jews is one thing; stealing European money to subsidize the good life for kin and cronies is quite another.

Finally, even facts do matter. Before Mr. Arafat returned to the West Bank, life was far better for his people than during his kleptocracy. He may be adept at screaming from balconies and writing checks to terrorists, but he cannot govern. He was a creation of the Soviet Union and a mobster of the old school, and thus can only do what mobsters do — provide protection for money, order hits, extort from rivals, buy supporters, embezzle from friends, and purchase political legitimacy.

Reasoning with him would be no different than discussing democratic reform with Saddam Hussein, or brokering freedom of speech with the Iranian mullahs, or believing Mr. Castro will hold real elections. Such men cannot do such things, because they are precisely such men — to ask them to do otherwise or to be other than what they are is to ask them to die.

None of the threats from the Israelis, the praise from the Arabs, or the measured and calculated rhetoric from the Europeans can change the truth. It just sits there and won't go away. Palestinian puppets will come and they will go, but ultimately there will be no peace until Mr. Arafat finds his inferno or joins his family in France. It is simple as that.

These are difficult days with constant sniping at Americans, both metaphoric and literal, in Iraq, billions in expenditures, and a hysteria that has infected both our politics
and media. But as long as we keep on the right side of history, we will not go wrong. After September 11, seeking to recover our national security by removing aggressive terrorist and fascist regimes is both moral and noble; so is implanting consensual governments, not military dictatorships, in their places. Supporting a democratic Israel in its efforts to withstand suicide murdering by organized killer gangs is never a mistake, whatever the politics of oil, money, terror, or geopolitical strategy of the day.

Finally, the president's critics have got it entirely backwards. The
easy, the safe — the amoral — path after September 11 was one of cruise missiles, grimacing with the nodding Europeans, and empty rhetoric, braggadocio that for the moment would have pacified angry Americans without disturbing their calm or hitting their pocketbooks. In contrast, the really hard choices were to ensure not that such horrific regimes ceased their killing for a moment, but that they ceased to be altogether. Critics talk of promoting "perpetual war," but our past conduct, not the recreation of the present deterrence, alone would have guaranteed that scary scenario.

To ask brave soldiers to go into the inferno of Afghanistan and Iraq and by virtue of their skill and courage, under the televised scrutiny of a global audience, end the rule of murderers was not easy. Nor was staying on to help the helpless. Yes, the truly frightening alternative was the blustering inaction that we have seen for the past 20 years that led to September 11 and the real quagmire in the Middle East.

So I expect that the European critics, the U.N. (its money, its headquarters, its muscle, and its elite support, after all, depend on Americans), and most of the Arab world will eventually gravitate to the United States. After petty squabbles over prestige and honor, they will hold their noses and "support" (nodding, but no money) what is going on in Iraq — as long as we stay firm and don't weaken in our commitment to rebuild Iraq and continue to press on in our effort to shut down the nearby havens of terror. There is no "war against terror," remember — only a "war against those states that aid and abet those who employ the method of terror."

Conventional wisdom here and abroad assures that Americans must seek to reclaim friendships now recklessly endangered. Yet despite the undeniable need for the United States to be humble and forgiving, I reckon the real rub may lie in the opposite direction, as they seek us out rather than vice versa.

Once the world sobers up and the frenzy subsides, nations will still want someone to be worried about Iran and North Korea. The Bekka Valley will not disappear. China will still scare its neighbors. Japan will still look to the United States military. The NATO partners won't wish us to leave; Russians will remember that we will never attack them, but always find a way to forgive them for almost everything they do. Egyptians and Jordanians will appreciate that they have slandered Americans and been paid in the process. And despite, or perhaps because of, past appeasement, Islamic terrorists will still hate the defenseless Europeans as much as they do the United States.



And for Chewie: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0309260839.asp

[Timber Loftis]

While it is opinion I agree with, this is yet another person claiming their OPINION is TRUTH/FACT. As I said, I agree, but I wouldn't have further inflated the already-lied-about gallup poll numbers. If I wanted to misstate facts, I'd pick ones that are less easy lies to detect.

Article says:

in a recent Gallup poll almost 70 percent of Iraqis thought things were far better now than under Saddam

The truth:

Two-thirds, 67 percent, say they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off. But they're not convinced that Iraq is better off now -- 47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion and 33 percent said it is better off. _________________________________________ From Ar-Cunin's post at The Oasis which was pulled from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Why is it that conservatives from Limbaugh to Bush have this vision of "how the world is" that colors their view and repeatedly causes them to get the FACTS wrong. He read "67%" and thought -- A-HA! He didn't even notice that the poll regarding conditions NOW was a much lower figure. It's like Bush and the WMD. He so strongly believed they were there that he contorted the facts to fit his view of reality.

Careful how fast you shriek Ureka, for you may find yourself running down the street naked.

[ 09-26-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Donut]

I'm not sure if the contributors to the NRO live in cloud cuckoo land or on fantasy island!

The Bush administration is doing so many U-turns they must be getting giddy.

Iraqis given constitution deadline


The United States is to set Iraq's Governing Council a six month deadline to come up with a constitution that would lead to elections and a new government next year.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the New York Times the deadline would be difficult but it was necessary to get the interim Iraqi leadership moving.

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says the move is a sharp about-face in American policy - and a concession to critics of the US-led occupation of Iraq.

The announcement comes as the US and members of the Iraqi Governing Council have raised concerns about the United Nations' decision to further reduce its international staff in Iraq because of continuing concerns about the worsening security situation.

The Iraqi minister responsible for foreign affairs, Hoshyar Zebari, said the UN was "playing into the hands of terrorists".

He told the BBC it was important for the UN to stay the course, despite two attacks on its headquarters in Baghdad.

The US has also expressed disappointment at the UN decision, taken at a time when the Bush administration is trying to encourage broader international support for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The UN Security Council is currently debating a new resolution that would encourage other nations to provide money and troops to the US-led occupation.

Some countries - including France - have called for a rapid timetable for Iraqi self-rule as a pre-condition for offering assistance, a move the US administration has ruled out.

Mr Powell told the New York Times that Washington had already asked the governing council to estimate how long it would take it to draw up a constitution which would lead to elections and a new government.

"If they take forever to give us the answer to that question, then we've got a problem," he said. "But I think they'll give us an answer fairly quickly."

He said the constitution drafted by Iraqi leaders would spell out whether Iraq should be governed by a presidential or parliamentary system and clear the way for elections and the installation of a new government in 2004.

Mr Powell added that granting authority to an unelected Iraqi Government would undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and set it up for attack from Saddam Hussein loyalists.

Our correspondent says that US politicians in Congress have also been calling for a realistic timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

US troops in Iraq come under regular attack and attacks on civilians continue to underline a precarious security situation in the country.

On Thursday a mortar attack on a market in Baqouba, north of Baghdad, left eight civilians dead and 18 injured.

Some 600 international staff were stationed in Iraq before the first attack but that number has been drastically reduced. In the absence of international staff, the UN will rely on more than 4,000 Iraqis to continue mainly humanitarian work.

"Today there remain 42 in Baghdad and 44 in the north of the country, and those numbers can be expected to shrink over the next few days," said Fred Eckhard, a spokesman for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

"This is not an evacuation, just a further downsizing, and the security situation in the country remains under constant review," he added.

That will soften the blow for Iraqi civilians who have come to rely even more heavily on the UN in the post war period, the BBC's Greg Barrow reports from the UN.

But UN officials acknowledge there is still likely to be a heavy political impact from this move.

Story from BBC NEWS:

[Timber Loftis]

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says the move is a sharp about-face in American policy - and a concession to critics of the US-led occupation of Iraq.

Yet another misstatement of fact. The US policy included getting the Constitution does as a first priority. Has been that way since Iraqi exiles were assembled in Michigan to run the government before the war was even over. While the occupation may last years -- helping with systems-building and all that -- the constitution was fully expected to come within the 1st year post-war. At least that's been my impression since the tanks were rolling.

Hmmm..... maybe I should rail on both sides for warping facts.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: These critics now claim that we are in a Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq and have become estranged from the rest of the world on a variety of fronts from the West Bank to the United Nations. Nothing could be further from the truth, ................... And for Chewie: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0309260839.asp

Please explain how 'Nothing could be further from the truth'?

There are over 20 attacks per day on coalition forces. If the current rate of attrition continues 436 US servicemen will die each year the US is in Iraq. Given the inflow of foreign terrorists into Iraq this figure is likely to multiply. Stay 5 years and you will lose the equivalent number of lives that were lost in the WTC.

The neocons have taken a country which was no direct threat to the USA, with no proven links to terrorist groups who would have attacked US interests and turned it into a theatre of terrorism with more targets than bin laden could ever have dreamt of. Sounds like Vietnam to me!

And where is the writers proof of other countries warming to the US - some fences have been mended but fundamentally the situation is the same.

Bush isolated after UN speech

NEW YORK: George Bush was increasingly isolated on the global stage on Tuesday as he defied intense criticism from a litany of world leaders at the United Nations over the war on Iraq.

Showing no contrition for defying the UN in March or the declining security situation in Iraq, the US president called for the world to set aside past differences and help rebuild the country: "Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid - and all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support," he said.

But the French president, Jacques Chirac, who spoke after Mr Bush, blamed the US-led war for sparking one of the most severe crises in the history of the UN and argued that Mr Bush's unilateral actions could lead to anarchy.

"No one can act alone in the name of all and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules," he said. "The war, launched without the authorisation of the security council, shook the multilateral system. The UN has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history."

Earlier the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, condemned the doctrine of preemptive military intervention, arguing that it could lead to the unjustified "lawless use of force" and posed a "fundamental challenge" to world peace and stability.

"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification," said Mr Annan. "This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."

The Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who also spoke before Mr Bush, said: "A war can perhaps be won single- handedly. But peace - lasting peace - cannot be secured without the support of all."

Mr Bush's speech was received with polite applause from the 191-member states, while his critics were given a far warmer reception.

The American president was not just under fire for his decision to wage war without international consent but also for his refusal to move more quickly towards handing control of the country back to the Iraqi people.

Both Mr Chirac and the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, called for a transition within months, insisting that this was crucial to securing peace. Mr Bush has not laid out a timetable. Mr Bush is under increasing domestic political pressure to outline a strategy to get out of Iraq, where increasing military casualties and growing financial burden on a strained economy are draining support ahead of next year's presidential election.

Having bypassed the UN to bomb Iraq, America returned to the security council earlier this month asking for military and financial help to assist it with the costs of the occupation. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service

[Skunk]

Shouldn't this article have been entitled:
"On the extreme right wing of History"?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Skunk: Shouldn't this article have been entitled: "On the extreme right wing of History"?

Or: "On the right side of history as written by the NRO"

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, I got to the words "Chirac said" and quit reading.

But, here's the logic. Since the US did something the UN did not agree with and ousted a murdering dictator, the UN is now free to ignore the UN Charter and its mandate. Where's my rolleyes smiley -- I know it's around here somewhere.

Of course, if the US just up a left, then the UN would certainly go in.

Look, the US administration, I think, would happily admit the US Army is targeted toward winning wars, not nation-building, and that the UN is better at that. Every administration person I have heard speak says we don't want an empire and we want to turn Iraq over ASAP. The UN is all about nation-building.

Right now, there is an ironic situation: there is a humanitarian crisis, and the US is the only nation really dealing with it (other than the UK) and the UN refuses to provide aid. It must be Opposites Day. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Whether or not you argue the US caused the crisis, it does not matter. The UN is always bailing out countries for crises they caused.

[ 09-26-2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Skunk: Shouldn't this article have been entitled: "On the extreme right wing of History"?

I don't know..ask the man yourself [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Shouldn't this article have been entitled: "On the extreme right wing of History"?

Or: "On the right side of history as written by the NRO" [/QUOTE]
Perhaps "On the right side of History" one man's opinion...or perhaps in 5 years, we can point at it and say he was right.

I do know that there were a number of people here who predicted the US war (talking about the one with the Iraqi army) was going to be a hugely bloody affair and that it would last a loooong time...and of course History has showed that it weren't that way at all [img]smile.gif[/img] .