Posted on 04/27/2007 4:50:03 AM PDT by Tolik
Not long ago I talked to a right-wing hardnosed fellow in a conservative central California town about the need to stay and finish the task of stabilizing the democracy in Iraq and rectifying the disastrous aftermath of 1991. He wasn’t buying. Instead he kept ranting about the war in the ‘more rubble, less trouble’ vein. And his anger wasn’t only over our costs in lives and treasure. So I finally asked him exactly why the venom over Iraq. He shouted, “I don’t like them sons of bitches over there — any of ’em.” His was a sort of echo of Bismarck’s oft-quoted “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.”
There are dozens of tragic ironies in Iraq. The fostering of democracy by a Republican president only alienated his dour realist base. Yet his idealism did not even win as recompense faint sympathy from supposedly Wilsonian Democratic opponents. Indeed, they now sound like Bob Taft isolationists. The fiercest critics of the brave struggling Iraqi elected government remain liberal Senate Democrats, not Republicans.
The Iraqi oil fields were liberated from Russian, French, and Baathist extortion. Then subsequent sky-rocketing oil prices further enriched the Middle East — only to earn the slur “No Blood for Oil.”
Liberation of the downtrodden Shiite from a largely oppressive Sunni minority only won the U.S. disdain from Shiite Iran and assorted Shiites from Lebanon to the Gulf — and resentment from nearby Sunni monarchies.
President Bush stayed on after victory to offer consensual government, unlike his father in 1991. As a reward, he won criticism from the critics of Bush I for now attempting what they once so loudly advocated.
Perhaps strangest of all is the tragicomic spectacle of Middle East “reformers” and democracy advocates. They vehemently criticized American efforts in Iraq from their autocratic masters’ state-run censored megaphones in Cairo, Riyadh, and Amman.
All that and the dreary narrative from the battlefield help to explain plummeting public support for the war at a time when empathy for brave Iraqis is critical to the continuance of the effort. But there is another, more worrisome dynamic at work here. I would call it the “them sons of bitches” sentiment that is usually better left unspoken.
By any honest assessment, the great majority of Iraqis are brave citizens who voted en masse for change, at great risk to their safety. Kurdistan is a stunning success. It belies stereotypes that Muslims can’t govern themselves peacefully, practice consensual government, or create vibrant economies. Tribal sheiks and clerics in Iraq hate al Qaeda as much as we do. They suffer far more losses in trying to rid their country of such killers. American soldiers testify to the friendliness and support of the Iraqi people.
But that American alliance with freedom-loving Arabs is not what is reported. Instead the public hears and sees two quite different things. The two are antithetical to each other.
First, we are now well accustomed to the administration talking of “freedom” and “democracy,” and of providing an “opportunity” for the Arab world “to embrace” liberty. Indeed, the 3,000 plus Americans killed in action in Iraq and the hundreds of billions spent so far are often explained as being for the sake of offering a chance for something better than the non-choice between a Saddam or an Assad and the theocratic alternative of the Taliban or the Iranian ayatollahs.
But such a legitimate and necessary rationale depends also upon general empathy for the Middle East. We are embarking on this new course in the hopes that the American lives sacrificed and our treasure spent are for a friendly people that appreciates our efforts. I think they do, and that the record of brave Iraqi reformers is worth the effort — both for the sake of our future security and so as to adopt a new moral posture that respects Arab self-determination.
But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery.
Fostering democracy in Iraq is called imperialism. But then so is the opposite of backing a strongman in Pakistan or Egypt. Billions sent to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine goes unmentioned or is considered too paltry. Millions of Muslims saved in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Indonesia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia means nothing. One Koran wrongly said to be flushed is everything.
A sense of imbalance is everywhere. Imams call Jews “pigs and apes.” The Pope is threatened for his dry recitation of history. Cartoonists, novelists, filmmakers, and opera producers are all promised death or beheading, while the worst sort of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred is broadcast and published in state-run Arab media.
Worse follows. Just when one surmises from all this that the Arab Muslim world despises the United States, the American public is exasperated that, in fact, it really doesn’t — at least, in the sense that Muslims from the Middle East clamor to enter the United States. Everything Western, from iPods to the Internet to cellphones, spreads like wildfire in the Arab world. Family members of those in the Assad government, in the Shiite militias in Lebanon, in the Pakistani dictatorship, and in the Iranian theocracy live in safety and security in the land of the Great Satan, from Washington to Michigan.
Yet the Muslim community in the Untied States, at least if defined by its self-appointed collective leadership, is mostly heard and seen decrying “Islamophobia” inside America, suing on allegations of discrimination, and damning the effort in Iraq. Rarely are voiced furor and anger at the illiberal regimes that drove Arabs out. Even rarer is expressed some sort of gratitude for the liberal regime that welcomed them in. Or, at least, that is the impression imparted to Americans by their media that provides them with sounds bites and live video streams in lieu of travel to and study of the Middle East.
The net result is the American voter is tired and saturated with negative imagery. Public opinion polls are notoriously fickle. But most show a sharp increase in negative views of Muslims in general. A 2006 Washington Post poll suggested that nearly half of all Americans had a negative view of Muslims—far higher even than was even found shortly after September 11. The Council on American-Islamic Relations claims that one American in four surveyed said Islam was a religion of hatred and violence and held extreme anti-Muslim views. Yet other less partisan surveys agree that one in three Americans believe that Islam encourages violence. And various other polls reveal that only about 20% of Americans are in sympathy with the Palestinians. Egypt alone of the major Arab countries rates a favorable impression; most others—Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia—evoke high levels of American negativity.
This popular sentiment, to the extent it is ever voiced openly, is, of course, attributed to “intolerance” and “prejudice.” But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.
So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.
To counteract this, we need more clarity both here and abroad. First, the administration must articulate how our idealism is stark realism as well. Americans daily have to be reminded that consensual government in Iraq — not just plebiscites — is in our long-term strategic interest. Second, we should hear far more of Iraqi cooperation and joint operations, both military and civilian, that in fact do characterize this war and reveal an Arab desire to be free of the past. And third, far more long-suffering members of the Iraqi government need to express some appreciation for the American sacrifice — and express such gratitude to the American people directly.
We worry rightly about anti-Americanism and winning over the people of Iraq. But the greater problem, at least as we now witness it in the Senate and House, is winning back those here at home.
Seeing more of the purple finger, and less of the shaking fist, is the key to regaining the hearts and minds of Americans — who in the end alone can win or lose this war.
The “purple finger” of Iraqi voters who risked their lives to vote has always intrigued me. Who came up with the idea to use indelible ink to prevent voter fraud? Why don’t we use it? Unthinkably, could there be more voter fraud in the U.S. than there is in Iraq?
On a hunch I typed in “purplefinger.com” and what I found was a cry from the heart of the true Iraq – the freedom-loving people who have known so little of it. In sometimes broken English, they say:
“Prior to the elections this was our message and still is our message: Do not believe the media. . . . Be careful of what you hear. People do not risk their lives to join the Iraqi police or military because they are not passionate about the future . . . We have not lost hope nor the will to fight. Yes we will have freedom. Yes. . . . The beautiful country of Iraq deserves to live in freedom.”
Just thought Freepers who appreciate freedom would be interested in this website.
"Unthinkably"? I guess you don't remember that it is likely fraud in Illinois tipped the 1960 Presidential election to Kennedy.
That is a consequence of media and political figures who have very successfully turned a distant war to their own domestic ends by casting it in the most negative light possible. There are several further consequences - first, that American participation in international collective security that is so dear to the progressive heart has been damaged badly, second, that the media constitute an echo chamber and the hatred that they magnify disproportionately does not simply resonate through the country, but through the world, third, that the moral equivalency necessary to pull off this ideological flimflam leaves its promoters no real way to differentiate aggression from self-defense, and fourth, that it offers up a twisted, skewed view of the world that serves only the haters.
That is the price of power, of influence. Those who claim that Bush has blood on his hands would do well to examine their own.
Thanks for the ping.
Fold now and you can kiss Isreal, Taiwan, Pakistan, and others, goodbye.
Harry Reid doesn't care one way or the other about the Iraqis. His only interest is gaining power for the Democrats, and he'll do that any way he can.
This is a weak analysis. The Administration has only itself to blame for the unpopularity of the Iraq war. For example, propaganda is an essential part of war but the President has totally neglected it.
“That is the price of power”. YES! This is ALL about power. Ironically, if it was Gore doing all the Bush work, we’d have no “peace” movement to talk about, and the conservative side would mostly deal with the isolationist wing itself. I must say, of course, that there is no way Gore would do everything that Bush did, but its still important to note the sheer hypocrisy and cynicism of the Left.
In their power-war the Left opens up a Pandora box that will take much more blood and money to close later.
I don’t think that they consciously want Jihad, Inc to win. Its just they think that they are so much better for the country that the goal of getting back to power justifies the means of getting there.
Where did I hear that before? Lenin came up with motto: “Worse is better”. So Bolsheviks did not fight for improvement of working conditions of their base, worse conditions actually were increasing their base. And they were only one party in the whole warring Europe to advocate defeat of their own country during the WWI. Proudly so, I’d say. Anything and everything for the revolution. Its striking that our Dems adapt (unknowingly, but tellingly anyway) the Bolsheviks tactics.
I will correct just a bit: its still takes two to tango, so the Left (dems + MSM) did play important part in making the war unpopular. But I absolutely agree, in my view, the Administration’s neglect of the info-war and communication is the biggest and costliest mistake.
Perhaps the way to deal with the Middle East is to go to the countries there that are at least nominally on our side and give them the option: cut the crap, stifle the 'death to Israel' and 'death to America' crap, and support us openly or we will leave, but we'll leave parts of the Middle East as a glass parking lot on the way out - any place we think may be trouble is gonna cease to be trouble in an instant.
Nah. won't happen.
I whole heartly agree with you, this administration’s biggest botch has been with communication. I think Bush really bought into ‘a new tone in Washington’ crap thinking that his political opponents would follow suit. It is the same thinking we display when we analyze Iran or the Palestians and think ‘gosh, they just want to be like with us, they want to raise their children in freedom and eat McDonalds, etc’.
No they don’t think like us at all, they want to force their values, their religion and their culture on the whole world and they are willing to kill over it.
Precisely. And, in addition, any instability induced in the status quo further serves their aim of changing it. The essence of progressivism is the entirely false assumption that change is both inevitable (it is) and beneficial (it isn't), this because of the underlying dogma that history is on some sort of well-defined path. No one who actually reads history can possibly agree to that, and the progressive solution to that is simply to change the definitional nature of history as "narrative," one being as good as another.
That is ideology run amok, the deliberate subordination of everything one observes to what one wishes to be true. That's why academicians love it and the poor folks who have to clean up the mess hate it. The latter - that would be us.
I wish President Bush and Tony Snow could include your statement verbatim in a speech.
Their own defense has been low on their list.
You are right: Europe needs to be "worth it" to the Europeans before I'd have a single American die for that increasingly totalitarian entity.
Thank you very much. Although the President has been saying for the last 4 years that Al Qaeda has chosen Iraq to be the central front of their war against us and that we must destroy them right in Iraq but sadly only a minority of Patriots is listening to what he has been saying.
Huh? VD's categories don't seem to apply to what's going on now. The Democrats sound more like McGovernites. You might find "Bob Taft" sentiments among a few Republicans, though. "Wilsonianism" looks dormant or dead.
The fiercest critics of the brave struggling Iraqi elected government remain liberal Senate Democrats, not Republicans.
I don't think they're talking about the Iraq government much. They don't like Bush and just want out.
we need to win the info-war at home
Did you see this thread?
All too true. Probably his biggest failing, in all of this.
Post #59 is for you, too.
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.