Posted on 04/17/2003 10:18:58 AM PDT by knighthawk
With the war in Iraq virtually over, "now comes the hard part" has become the cliche of the moment. Given the looting of Baghdad, who can argue? But I have something else to add: Now comes the best part. That best part will be to show the best part of America. I doff my hat to the once-scorned Clinton military (whose Army do you think this is?), which the Bush administration used with dash. But I expected nothing less. The surprise to the rest of the world - particularly the Arab world - will come when the U.S. establishes some sort of democracy in Iraq. If something approximating a civil society emerges in Iraq, this - much more than our military might - will threaten regimes throughout the region. Nothing will menace the despots of the regimes more than their own people noticing that there is a better way.
If, as it is said, liberals underestimate the utility of power, then conservatives get just plain high on it. With the collapse of Saddam's regime came immediate whoops from the right that all sorts of wonderful things were happening. Foremost among them, it was said, was the "sudden" willingness of the North Korean regime to talk with the U.S. and others. The critical words are "and others," because North Korea long insisted it would talk only with Washington, and Washington long said - and I am paraphrasing here - "no dice." The mighty victory over Iraq supposedly changed North Korea's mind.
Not really. In fact, it was the Chinese who got the North Koreans to the bargaining table. They did that by closing down their oil pipeline to North Korea for three days last month.
Yet the so-called "demonstration effect" that conservatives see is not to be dismissed entirely. Surely, Syria has noticed that U.S. troops are next door. But in the long run, Syria has more to fear from the U.S. fulfilling its promise to transform Iraq - a "demonstration effect" of lasting, momentous consequences - than it does from any military moves on Washington's part. Syria is not in multiple violation of UN resolutions. There is no legal cause for war.
Frankly, I have no idea if what the U.S. is attempting in Iraq has a chance of succeeding. All I know is that we have to try - and try and try. Iraq has some of the elements conducive to democracy - an educated populace, a middle class and, of course, vast oil wealth. But it is a nation that comprises ethnic groups that share only a mutual enmity - toward each other.
Whatever the case, we cannot hit and run as we have mostly done in Afghanistan, which is returning to its old ways. We have to stick it out. We might, in fact, have to persist in making terrorism the functional equivalent of communism - a mortal threat that justifies enormous sacrifice. The truth of that proposition has yet to be seen.
The war, not to mention Sept. 11, tested the mettle of President Bush - and he passed. But in a way, the peace will be even harder. Peace will be expensive - maybe back-breakingly so. More important, peace will break our hearts. Iraq will lurch out of control, then back in again. Periodic acts of terrorism will occur. More Americans might die - and many Americans surely will ask why.
The answer this time cannot be about presumed weapons of mass destruction or fictive links to Al Qaeda or the vile nature of the regime.
It will instead be about freedom and democracy at the end of the road. The future of Iraq, not the conquering of it, will be the true "demonstration effect" of the war - for it and for America, too.
Sorry, that's where I say "enough."
"It will instead be about freedom and democracy at the end of the road. The future of Iraq, not the conquering of it, will be the true "demonstration effect" of the war - for it and for America, too."
And
In fact, it was the Chinese who got the North Koreans to the bargaining table. They did that by closing down their oil pipeline to North Korea for three days last month.
Just why does he think China bothered? We made it clear we wouldn't be blackmailed and N. Korea was becoming a liability because China doesn't really want to f*** with us about nukes...
It is also the Gulf War I Army, the Union Army, and the Revolutionary Army. But the military success in Gulf II has nothing to do with Clinton. Remember all the noise about the tactics, violation of the Powell Doctrine, and the recriminations about insufficient force, a bad battle plan, excessively long supply lines, etc., etc., etc.?
The Rumsfeld Defense Department, clearly integral to the Bush Administration, provided new precision weapons in quantities that supported the new tactics that transformed the nature of the battle. And he pushed the military to use these new resources to best advantage, with a level of coordination never seen before, for unprecedented effectiveness and minimal collateral damage. By now we have heard from many sources that this war will be studied intensely in every place where soldiers are trained, because it has radically transformed the nature of war. That did not happen as a result of Mr. Clinton or any of the nonentities that sat behind the desk of the Secretary of Defense under him.
Purging all of the perfumed princes will take a while, but we are getting some good men in place, and will only get better. In time to face new and more dangerous adversaries when they decide to take us on -- I hope.
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.