Ten years ago, along with three-quarters of the
American people, including the men just appointed as President Obama’s
secretaries of state and defense, I supported the invasion of Iraq. A decade
on, unlike most of the American people, including John Kerry and Chuck Hagel,
I’ll stand by that original judgment.
None of us can say what would have happened had
Saddam Hussein remained in power. He might now be engaged in a nuclear-arms
race with Iran. One or other of his even more psychotic sons, the late Uday
or Qusay, could be in power. The Arab Spring might have come to Iraq, and
surely even more bloodily than in Syria.
But these are speculations best left to the
authors of “alternative histories.” In the real world, how did things turn
out?
Three weeks after Operation Shock and Awe began,
the early-bird naysayers were already warning of massive humanitarian
devastation and civil war. Neither happened. Overcompensating somewhat for all
the doom-mongering, I wrote in Britain’s Daily Telegraph that
“a year from now Basra will have a lower crime rate than most London
boroughs.” Close enough. Major General Andy Salmon, the British commander in
southern Iraq, eventually declared of Basra that “on a per capita basis, if
you look at the violence statistics, it is less dangerous than Manchester.”
Ten years ago, expert opinion was that Iraq was a
phony-baloney entity imposed on the map by distant colonial powers. Joe
Biden, you’ll recall, advocated dividing the country into three separate
states, which for the Democrats held out the enticing prospect of having
three separate quagmires to blame on Bush, but for the Iraqis had little
appeal. “As long as you respect its inherently con-federal nature,” I argued,
“it’ll work fine.” As for the supposedly secessionist Kurds, “they’ll settle
for being Scotland or Quebec.” And so it turned out. The Times of
London, last week: “Ten Years after Saddam, Iraqi Kurds Have Never Had It So
Good.” In Kurdistan as in Quebec, there is a pervasive unsavory tribal
cronyism, but on the other hand, unlike Quebec City, Erbil is booming. [What strikes me about that whole controversy is the
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires had to be divided, losing wars will do that
to an empire. Hell, wining wars will have that effect, just ask the British
Lion. Not only did Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have to come from somewhere, but
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia also needed to be born. At least the
Allies who tried to make viable countries out of that ethnic stew knew more
about history then Joe Biden ever tried to learn.]
What of the rest of the country? Iraq, I
suggested, would wind up “at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state
in the Arab world, and, at best, pleasant, civilized and thriving.” I’ll
stand by my worst-case scenario there. Unlike the emerging “reforms” in
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, politics in Iraq has remained flawed but,
by the standards of the grimly Islamist Arab Spring, broadly secular.
So I like the way a lot of the trees fell. But I
missed the forest.
On the previous Western liberation of Mesopotamia,
when General Maude took Baghdad from the Turks in 1917, British troops found
a very different city from the Saddamite squat of 2003: In a lively,
jostling, cosmopolitan metropolis, 40 percent of the population was Jewish. I
wasn’t so deluded as to think the Jews would be back, but I hoped something
of Baghdad’s lost vigor might return. Granted that most of the Arab world,
from Tangiers to Alexandria, is considerably less “multicultural” than it was
in mid-century the remorseless extinction of Iraq’s Christian community this
last decade is appalling — and, given that it happened on America’s watch,
utterly shameful. Like the bland acknowledgement deep in a State Department
“International Religious Freedom Report” that the last church in Afghanistan
was burned to the ground in 2010, it testifies to the superpower’s impotence,
not “internationally” but in client states entirely bankrolled by us.
Foreigners see this more clearly than Americans.
As Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister of Singapore, said on a visit to
Washington in 2004, “The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the
U.N. The central issue is America’s credibility and will to prevail.” Just
so. If you live in Tikrit or Fallujah, the Iraq War was about Iraq. If you
live anywhere else on the planet, the Iraq War was about America, and the
unceasing drumbeat of “quagmire” and “exit strategy” communicated to the world an emptiness at the heart of American power — like the toppled statue of Saddam
that proved to be hollow. On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, mobs trashed
U.S. embassies across the region with impunity. A rather more motivated crowd
showed up in Benghazi, killed four Americans, including the ambassador, and
correctly calculated they would face no retribution. Like the Taliban in
Afghanistan, these guys have reached their own judgment about American
“credibility” and “will” — as have more potent forces yet biding their time,
from Moscow to Beijing.
A few weeks after the fall of Saddam, on little
more than a whim, I rented a beat-up Nissan at Amman Airport and, without
telling the car-hire bloke, drove east across the Iraqi border and into the
Sunni Triangle. I could not easily make the same journey today: Western
journalists now require the permission of the central government to enter
Anbar Province. But for a brief period in the spring of 2003 we were the
“strong horse” and even a dainty little media gelding such as myself was
accorded a measure of respect by the natives. At a rest area on the highway
between Rutba and Ramadi, I fell into conversation with one of the locals.
Having had to veer onto the median every few miles to dodge bomb craters, I
asked him whether he bore any resentments toward his liberators. “Americans
only in the sky,” he told me, grinning a big toothless grin as, bang on cue,
a U.S. chopper rumbled up from over the horizon and passed high above our
heads. “No problem.”
“Americans only in the sky” is an even better
slogan in the Obama era of drone-alone warfare. In Iraq, there were a lot of
boots on the ground, but when it came to non-military leverage (cultural,
economic) Americans were content to remain “only in the sky.” And down on the
ground other players filled the vacuum, some reasonably benign (the Chinese
in the oil fields), others less so (the Iranians in everything else).
And so a genuinely reformed Middle East remains,
like the speculative scenarios outlined at the top, in the realm of
“alternative history.” Nevertheless, in the grim two-thirds-of-a-century roll
call of America’s un-won wars, Iraq today is less un-won than Korea, Vietnam,
or Afghanistan, and that is not nothing. The war dead of America and its few
real allies died in an honorable cause. But armies don’t wage wars, nations
do. And, back on the home front, a vast percentage of fair-weather hawks who
decided that it was all too complicated, or a bit of a downer, or Bush lied,
or where’s the remote, revealed America as profoundly unserious. A senator
who votes for war and then decides he’d rather it had never started is also
engaging in “alternative history” — albeit of the kind in which Pam Ewing
steps into the shower at Southfork and writes off the previous season
of Dallas as a bad dream. In non-alternative history, in the
only reality there is, once you've started a war, you have two choices: to
win it or to lose it. Withdrawing one’s “support” for a war you’re already in
advertises nothing more than a kind of geopolitical ADHD.
Shortly after Gulf War One, when the world’s
superpower assembled a mighty coalition to fight half-a-war to an
inconclusive halt at the gates of Baghdad, Washington declined to get mixed
up in the disintegrating Balkans. Colin Powell offered the following
rationale: “We do deserts. We don’t do mountains.” Across a decade in Iraq,
America told the world we don’t really do deserts, either.
— Mark
Steyn, a National
Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.
© 2013 Mark Steyn
|
Saturday, June 22, 2013
But is there a geopolitical Ritalin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment