Victor Davis Hanson: Our Primordial World, Pride and Envy are what make this war go 'round

Where Americans see skill and subtlety in taking out Saddam Hussein and a costly effort to liberate a people, many Iraqis, even as they taste freedom, drive new cars, and see things improve, talk instead of humiliation, hurt pride, or anger at their own impotence — whether whining over the morticians' make-up work on Qusay, or ashamed about Saddam's pathetic televised dental examination. Iraqis scream on camera that we should not stay another minute, but even more often whisper that we better not leave yet.

Iraqi poll results regarding Saddam Hussein's capture
These polls conducted by the Iraqi Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) were published in Azzaman daily Baghdad edition two days ago. I searched the web to see if they had a website but unfortunately they don't seem to have one yet so I took the liberty to translate and publish the results here.

Dr. Sa'dun Al-Dulaymi head of the ICRSS stated that the surveys were carried out in eight major Iraqi cities and that a thousand Iraqis participated. Here are the complete results.

Distribution percentage of participants:
Baghdad 32%
Arbil 15%
Diyala 7%
Basrah 15%
Karbala 10%
Mosul 11%
Ramadi 6%
Faluja 4%

Gender of participants:
Male 81%
Female 19%

Education:
Illiterate 9%
Primary 20%
Intermediate 18%
Secondary 19%
Bachelor degree 15%
Associate degree 18%
Professional degree 1%

1)What was your reaction to Saddam Hussein's capture?

Overwhelming joy 59%
Shock and confusion 20%
Sadness 16%
None of my concern 5%

2)Are you personally convinced that it was really Saddam who was captured?

Yes 86.9%
No 13.1%

3)Do you think that Saddam deserves a fair trial?

Yes 84%
No 16%

4)Do you prefer that Saddam be tried by:

An Iraqi court? 60%
An Iraqi court with International advisors? 15%
An International court of justice? 25%

5)What is the fair judgement you believe Saddam deserves?

Execution 56%
Imprisonment 25%
Clemency 19%

6)What do you think a speedy trial of Saddam would achieve?

It would prevent an internal schism or conflict 45%
It would ensure security and stability 30%
It would increase chaos 14%
It would help end the occupation 10%
Others 1%

7)How do you think Saddam's capture would affect the resistance?

Decrease resistance activities 53%
Increase resistance activities 27%
Cessation of resistance 20%

8)How do you see Saddam's capture?

He surrendered without resistance 52.4%
He was drugged or anaesthetized 31.5%
He was taken by surprise 12.6%
Others 3.4%

9)Which is more important to you?

Providing security 54.9%
Providing fuel 35.8%
Saddam's capture 34.4%
Providing electricity 28.8%
Improving the economic situation 5.3%

10)Do you agree that those who suffered from the regime should be compensated?

Yes 12%
No 88%

11)How do you consider Saddam's policies and actions on the following issues:

A)The Iraq-Iran war:

Crime 77%
Justified action 23%

B)Invading Kuwait:

Crime 79%
Justified action 21%

C)Attacking Israel in 1991:

Crime 18%
Justified action 82%

D)Mass graves:

Crime 81%
Justified action 19%

E)Gasing the Kurds:

Crime 87%
Justified action 13%

F)Forced deportation:

Crime 82%
Justified action 18%

G)Killing religious and national figures:

Crime 83%
Justified action 17%

For more information about ICRSS and the survey you can email icrss@hotmail.com

# posted by zeyad : 12/30/2003 08:21:03 PM
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html

Thanks, Tolik. Good post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As Mr. Bush has grasped, every time we have humiliated our enemies we have gained respect and won security. By the same token, on each occasion we have shown deference to a Mr. Karzai, the Iraqi interim government, and our Eastern European friends, we have helped to create security and stability. Apart from the model of our forefathers who crushed and then lifted up the Germans and Japanese, we could find no better guide in this war than William Tecumseh Sherman and Abraham Lincoln — in that order. The former would remind us that our enemies traffic in pride and thus first must be disabused of it through defeat and humiliation. The latter (who turned Sherman and Grant lose) would maintain that we are a forgiving sort, who prefer restored rather than beaten people as our friends.

I think I found the article I was referencing:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068575/

Before plunging into Iraq, U.S. psychological-warfare operators studied certain cultural stereotypes.

One was that young Arab toughs cannot tolerate insults to their manhood. So, as American armored columns pushed down the road to Baghdad, 400-watt loudspeakers mounted on Humvees would, from time to time, blare out in Arabic that Iraqi men are impotent. The Fedayeen, the fierce but undisciplined and untrained Iraqi irregulars, could not bear to be taunted. Whether they took the bait or saw an opportunity to attack, many Iraqis stormed out of their concealed or dug-in positions, pushing aside their human shields in some cases—to be slaughtered by American tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. “What you say is many times more important than what you do in this part of the world,” says a senior U.S. psy-warrior.

Apologies for the formatting. Here's the corrected post:

The old truth that resurfaced was that the United States ...inherited by default much of the role of the British dominion

I'm not sure about the case for other countries, but it does explain much of the anti-Americanism among the "old" Right and "new" Left in the UK and English-speaking Commonwealth countries. Is it a surprise that

1) The former Dominions that used to feel the most sense of cultural and moral superiority over America by virtue of their ties to "Mother Britain" (I'm thinking primarily of New Zealand and Canada) are today the most anti-American and UN-pandering English-speaking countries?

2) Some British people nostalgic to the Empire are looking for a) reduction of America's status to another New Zealand, and b) the European Union (and subsequently the United States of Europe) become the "new" British Empire with lots of overseas "dominions"?

3) Many of today's animal-rights, anti-globalization, pro-Saddam activists are sons and daughters of yesteryears' colonial ruling classes or aristocracies?

It seems to me that these aren't coincidences.

Great post, and thanks for making it.

The world thought our weak response to past Iranian hostage-taking, the abrupt pull-out from Vietnam, and the insanely stupid withdrawal from Lebanon were catastrophic signs of American weakness as well as dangerous concessions that might encourage our enemies' boldness. And they were absolutely right.

We have paid a hundred times over for these actions, and in large measure we still are. What Vietnam taught an entire generation of anti-American activists is that an incessant campaign in the media and on campus can effect the foreign policy of a country whose military predominance makes a direct influence by force impossible.

I'd add the example of Somalia to this sad list. And this isn't a partisan issue, or shouldn't be - the administrations responsible for these responses in Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia, were the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton administrations, respectively. Two Democratic, two Republican. To bring this issue into partisan politics in the face of this evidence is shortsighted and foolish. It makes for lovely demagoguery, and that's about it.

Gefreiter wrote:

Professor Hanson hits some good points and, as always, with interesting turns of phrase. His theme about pride, though, is one of special interest to me.
What is the source of this feeling? Why is it so prevalent? Why do people believe it and perpetuate it?

______________________________________

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-

Fanaticism, -- overzealous pride in a tribe, a nation, a church or a cause, is our problem..

Live & let live is the american constitutional solution.. --- One that very few americans can follow to its logical conclusion, as does Hanson..

He concludes that we must use our power to temper justice with a type of mercy.. One that allows our enemy to live with pride & let us live with ours.
Hanson concludes:

" -- we could find no better guide in this war than William Tecumseh Sherman and Abraham Lincoln — in that order. The former would remind us that our enemies traffic in pride and thus first must be disabused of it through defeat and humiliation.
The latter (who turned Sherman and Grant loose) would maintain that we are a forgiving sort, who prefer restored rather than beaten people as our friends."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.