Replies

The professor's puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits. Then there's also Libya surrendering its nuclear program, Hamas being financially hamstrung (although The Guardian probably wouldn't see that as a benefit), Saddam's WMD program being shut down (he DID have one, and don't let any leftie tell you otherwise. See the Duelfer Report). True, there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise. Blurring these lines by fiat can't be done without some serious atrocities, including genocide and forced miscegenation. The Iraqis are just going to have to grow out of the whole tribalism thing. Worse still, in Iraq there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese regime poised to take power. One, only The Guardian would consider no adversary just over the horizon a good thing. Two, they're wrong. If the United States backs out like we did in Vietnam, there will be plenty of powers rushing into the resulting vacuum, including, but not limited to, Syria, Iran, and whatever is left of Zarqawi's crew. Eventually, one will wear the other two out, and bam, Iraq is right back where it started.