Posted on 07/30/2006 2:40:48 PM PDT by Mark
WHEN the first democratically, constitutionally elected prime minister of Iraq spoke before the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, a group of Democrats protested by sitting the speech out. Among the no-shows was California's own Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Her loss.
Boxer, the Senate's leading proponent of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, could have gained much from Nouri Kamal al-Maliki's impassioned plea on behalf of the people who risked their lives to elect him. It would have done her well to hear his exhortations that America not abandon Iraqis in their fight against Islamist terror, or undermine their brave effort to establish a liberal democracy.
“The fate of our country and yours is tied,” said al-Maliki. “Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the War on Terror will never be won ... If in continued partnership we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover.”
America has a vested interest in how the war between democrats and terrorists plays out in Iraq. If the current government crumbles, Iraq could become the international staging ground for terrorist attacks that Afghanistan was until 2001. Moreover, America's enemies would be emboldened by our lack of resolve, as they were when U.S. forces left Beirut in 1984 and Somalia in 1994.
“Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem,” al-Maliki implored, stressing that U.S. forces must not leave before Iraqis are able to defend themselves. “The completion of Iraq's forces forms the necessary basis for the withdrawal of multinational forces, but ... only when Iraq's forces are fully capable will the job of the multinational forces be complete.”
In other words, had Washington enacted the resolution Boxer proposed just two months ago — euphemistically calling for American troops to “redeploy” from Iraq within six months — Iraq's experiment in democracy would now face certain termination.
As it stands, the experiment is already in great peril, threatened by al-Qaida's relentless slaughter of innocents, rogue militias and sectarian violence. Yet dire though conditions remain, al-Maliki reminds us that there are also signs of hope: Iraq has, for the first time in its history, a functioning, democratic government. Its media are independent and uncensored. And its per-capita GDP has doubled since the 2003 invasion.
Surely even Boxer can find some progress here worth defending.
The senator, an avowed feminist, might also take heart in al-Maliki's pronouncement that “The rights chartered in (Iraq's) constitution will ... help consolidate the role of women in public life as equals to men and help them to play a greater role in political life.” If the jihadists win in Iraq, some 13 million women and girls can say goodbye to voting and education.
In moments of despair, it's easy to feel indifferent about the outcome of Iraq's war, but the stakes are too high for that. Either the U.S. forcefully sides with al-Maliki and the liberal democrats fighting for a better future, or it cedes the country to fascists and theocrats, and bears responsibility for whatever happens next.
This is, after all, a dilemma that America, for better or for worse, foisted on Iraq by deposing Saddam Hussein, who had managed to maintain order through sheer repression. There's no washing our hands of the ultimate outcome.
Given that Hussein helped to send an estimated 1 million Iraqis to their early deaths in his nearly 25-year reign of terror, Iraq — even at current levels of bloodshed — is better off than it was under his rule. But were the U.S. to follow the lead of Boxer and other neo-isolationists, the Iraqi people could be in for far worse — because America bailed on them.
It wouldn't be the first time. As al-Maliki reminded Congress, “In 1991, when Iraqis tried to capitalize on the regime's momentary weakness and rose up, we were alone” because coalition forces pulled out early after the Gulf War. “Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be more unforgiving.”
But Boxer skipped out on this important message to protest al-Maliki's admittedly asinine assessment of the situation in Lebanon — namely, condemning Israel while turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's depredations. She's right in her complaint, but wrong in her protest.
Here, it would be wise for al-Maliki's American critics to exercise some of the “realism” they regularly demand of President Bush.
Al-Maliki, who struggles to hang onto power in a nascent democracy, can scarcely afford to squander support by needlessly defending a country that most of his population reflexively despises. Besides, his success in stabilizing Iraq is far more important to Israel's future than is his public support.
From the Israeli point of view, al-Maliki is a vast improvement over Saddam Hussein, who fired Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and bankrolled Palestinian suicide bombers. And it goes without saying that he is far better than any of the possible players that could take over were Iraq's current government to fail.
The freedom and democracy al-Maliki's government offers are the best antidotes to the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas, and the best hope for victory in the War on Terror. This is the long view that al-Maliki presented to Congress. Too bad Boxer declined to take a look.
Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial-page editor. Write to him by e-mail at chris.weinkopf@dailynews.com.
Dems? Yeah, Get Real- fer sure.
Yes, it's their "collateral damage".
That's because she is pursuing other interests than her constituients.
bttt
If Boxer can't find a way to tie something to abortion, she's got no interest.
I'm beginning to see the abortion issue in a different light-- only in Bab's mother's 'choice'.
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.