Peace through Understanding

The trouble with proclamations, they generally have a grain of truth that gives them voice, but prove wrong either for the very fact that the proclamations were posted or because they contain other false assumptions. That may be the case with Scott Ritter’s “Misunderstanding Iraq” The article does contain clear and useful intelligence.

First, I cannot believe military intelligence is not aware of all of the elements of Saddam’s well-planed inclusion of tribal and fundamental elements and his plans for a resistance. The nationalism seems apparent even from here and seems to include academic ex-patriots. Soldiers writing about their experiences encountering ambush tactics have consistently written of the sophistication, training and organization of their opponents. Who could know better?

There too seems no doubt that civilian domination of military strategy and maybe parallel intervention in other ways has been wrong headed and mistaken on an embarrassing scale. No different than Viet Nam, but will the outcome be the same? I doubt it.

Ritter knows the ME first hand. Maybe like Wilson, that advice should have been heard. I think he is wrong in asserting that there is no welcoming constituency in Iraq. There seems from the blogs and the photographs a large educated and professional population that welcomes the opportunity for a secular democratic government. Under the present conflict, however they have been kidnapped, ransomed and killed. Most have fled or gone to ground. By the nature of what they do, this middle class is occupied with education, medicine or commerce. They are not effective combatants.

The suggestion that we will see a decade long nightmare and that the insurgents can defeat the occupation I doubt as well. The reality seems rather to be that this is Iraq’s only chance for a representative government of any kind. The Allawi government is indeed an interim government. The US does not intend to colonize Iraq and will leave when an election determines a representative government.

I think the intellectuals might do well to give some substance to this reality and to realize that the only two choices are an election under the UN and a peaceful acceptance of its result, or there will be a civil war, which indeed may be nightmarish and last for decades.

Let Saddam hang himself in his cell sometime tonight, and start preparing for elections tomorrow. Having said that, there remains the real possibility that Iraq can only be governed by a fairly ruthless monarch or dictator. There are likely business elements that feel that way now. It was certainly the case in the early days of Hitler and Mussolini.

If I understand a little of Iraqi history there was a most civil society in Baghdad before the Mongols and various waves of Bedouin tribes. There may still be a bourgeoisie longing for security and civility through autocratic control. Saddam might still be available. Better get him before he hangs himself.

The mistakes having been made, the question remains where do we go from here. Do we hold an election? Do we opt for totalitarianism? Do we sink into decades of civil war? One might be careful what one wishes for. If you think Pres. Bush is challenged or disingenuous, you might read what fellow servicemen say about Senator Kerry. While I agree someone should be held responsible for the mess one might place more of the blame on civilian advisors. I can think of two others for the closet. Place the authority with State. Let the generals deal with the strategy and hold elections now.

Intellectuals, especially those from the ME, here in the US, might consider too what they wish for. I am not at all convinced the ME voices in exile know as much about America as we know about the ME. The insurgent or the resistance if you must certainly has no clue.