David Pyne writes that we must win the hearts and minds of Iraqis to prevail; but to win hearts and minds, they must first be open to being won.
David T. Pyne’s recent column raises some interesting points, and makes very good sense at times, but it is dead wrong in other respects. Particularly, Mr. Pyne does not seem to understand certain key aspects of what we face in Iraq and the rest of that area of the world. This is a common problem. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice are both in the dark as well, for all of Rice’s vaunted education and intelligence. One would expect that she would know better.
Seriously, when America removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq the people should have applauded and accepted American forces as liberators. They didn’t, simply because of a tendency to reject outsiders, because they are not “one of us.” That fact probably shows us the nature of the central problem better than anything else; many locals would prefer to live under any homegrown government no matter how abusive. Anyone trying to bring liberty and enlightenment to the region faces an uphill battle against centuries of prejudice and indoctrination. And if a majority of the Iraqi people oppose this view, others will enforce it.
Pyne cites an acquaintance who proposed increasing the number of US troops in Iraq to two to three times the current level and a fifty-year occupation. Despite the cost in trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands more troops, this solution is probably more likely to succeed than anything else. What would stand in its way is the current lack of political will to fight as if this is a war. What is lowering morale and recruitment is the political situation; the White House must decide to take the gloves off, and stop acting as if its soldiers are in the wrong every time someone complains. The matter of Lieutenant Pantano is a prime example. He should probably never have come under investigation, and his case should have been summarily dismissed on the basis that he used his best judgment and training to make a battlefield decision. Soldiers who are going to be second-guessed by people behind the lines will have poor morale. People who don’t understand that shouldn’t be running the military.
Pyne also mentions retired Col. Douglas MacGregor’s comments on “Counterinsurgency Warfare 101, which has as one of its principal tenets winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the national populace.” This is a wonderful idea, except that to win hearts and minds, they must first be open to being won. Unfortunately, Iraqis have lived in an intellectually closed society for hundreds of years and have been taught to condemn anyone who does not think as they do. The fact that our attempt to bring a democratic government to Iraq has resulted in an Islamist constitution and the likely election of a jihadist government under Muqtada al-Sadr proves this beyond any reasonable doubt. The locals would gladly return to their chains, provided that the person holding them is one of their own. And while the Sunni portion of the population may have opposed al-Sadr, if they had had a majority, a Sunni despot would be the likely replacement. The Iraqi people do not understand democracy. They have been taught for too long that it is evil. They will not change unless change is forced upon them.
Pyne is correct when he says that it would help if our leaders publicly recognized that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the real enemy we are fighting in Iraq, and that the only way to truly win is depose the “Islamofascist fundamentalist Shiite-led government in Baghdad, appoint secularists to power, provide Iraqis with a new freedom-guaranteeing constitution based on our own, ban the Islamist parties, hold new elections in which the secularists are elected to power…” The problem is that the Iraqis won’t go for this in a free election. Imposing such a government would from outside would create serious international foment over imperialism and American oppression of Iraqi self-determination.
Where Pyne is most wrong is in declaring that “pre-war Iraq was a country that posed no threat to the United States, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no record of support of Al Qaida or any other terrorist group whose goal was to kill Americans.” Firstly, Iraq posed the same threat to America that all other nations in the area posed. Simply that it was headed for eventual membership in a pan-Islamic union against the rest of the world, and that this was likely to take place upon the death of Saddam Hussein, if not earlier. It has already been show that Saddam was in contact with Al Qaida operatives and that they had conducted training in the area.
Second, there is evidence that biological and chemical weapons were present in the Iraqi arsenal. While few were found after the invasion, there is evidence indicating the high probability of their removal to Syria. It would also not be surprising if some ended up in Iran. What most people fail to realize is that we are not dealing with huge stockpiles here. Only a few hundred gallons of nerve gas could kill millions. Looking for warehouses full of the stuff ignores the fact that only a small amount was needed. This is supported by the fact that Saddam was purportedly having the stuff manufactured in truck trailers which could be moved when needed.
Finally, even assuming that there were no such weapons present, Saddam Hussein had been promoting the belief that he had them for years, and we know that he had used them on Iraqi Kurds. In his part of the world having these weapons would have made him an object of fear, granting him potentially greater political power. Most people tend to forget that the invasion of Kuwait was only the first stage in his plan to occupy the entire Arabian Peninsula, not just for the oil reserves, but to obtain the cities of Mecca and Medina, after which he would have been able to make a play for the role of caliph, and become the focal point for pan-Islamic nationalism.
While the West has generally given up imperialistic dreams, other nations and peoples have not. We cannot depend on good will to defend us against their ambitions. Muslims have been fighting for centuries over who will lead them toward a worldwide empire. Now, when the we have become a spineless culture, with political leaders just waiting to be conquered, they are banding together around whomever appears to be the strongest. If Iran builds an atomic bomb, it will take the place of Iraq as the major power in the region. Russia, in helping Iran, is digging its own eventual grave. Such cooperation will not prevent the hordes from eventually invading and destroying their society along with every other that is not Islamic.
Many years ago I was told by an Israeli that you couldn’t negotiate with the Arabs because they took any concession as a sign of weakness; that peace would have to be imposed on them by changing their society and their fundamental assumptions about the world. You might say that they need to experience Europe’s Enlightenment, and have their society opened up to diversity of culture and thought. In light of recent developments, this appears to be accurate. Until the United States and other nations come to realize this, and act accordingly, it will be impossible for true democracy to appear in the Arab controlled Middle East.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
