|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 Will
Democracy Now Bloom in the Middle East?
Giving Iraqis a chance…
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 2/2/05
They reacted
with cheers and dancing in the streets as Iraqis proudly displayed
ink-stained forefingers as evidence that they
had voted in their country’s first free elections in half
a century. While fear and intimidation kept many Sunnis away,
the mere fact that the elections took place and that about 60%
of eligible voters voted, a respectable turnout by U.S. standards,
constituted a great victory for the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis and for the U.S.-led coalition that liberated them and
made the elections possible.
It was clearly a
milestone in the war on terrorism but it is premature to call
it a turning point. That point is still years
away and there will likely be other battlegrounds but it is hopefully
made closer by this demonstration of courage by the Iraqi people
in the face of deadly intimidation and it is certainly something
to celebrate. Even the liberal media appeared to join in. But
some diehard critics of the Bush foreign policy couldn’t
refrain from putting their negative spin on it. Failed presidential
candidate John Kerry warned against over-hyping the election
and urged future reliance on diplomacy. There is no pleasing
some people.
Other critics, including
some U.N. and European officials, whose counsel Senator Kerry
so values, warned that the poor turnout
by Sunnis or failure of a new government to reach out to the
Sunni minority might invalidate the election, at least in the
eyes of the Arab world. But why should it? Sunnis may constitute
a majority of the world’s Muslims but in Iraq they account
for only 20% of the population. Sunni insurgents, aware that
free elections would preclude a return to the power they monopolized
under Saddam Hussein, fought a losing battle to prevent the elections.
Failing that, they tried to intimidate potential voters. Successful
only in denying their own people an opportunity to participate
in free elections, they will now claim that the elections are
invalid since most Sunnis did not vote. But if American Catholics,
say, were to boycott an election because of the candidates’ views
on abortion, embryonic stem cell research or same-sex marriage,
would that be grounds for invalidating the election? In democracies,
majorities normally rule. Hopefully, the victors in Iraq will
choose policies of inclusion but the choice is, after all, up
to them, not us.
Statements by U.S. officials and military commanders expressed
great satisfaction and relief that the elections went as smoothly
as they did and that the Iraqi security forces performed far
better than expected. Nevertheless, they all contained what appeared
to be a requisite caution that the elections did not signify
an end to the insurgency or the start of disengagement by U.S
forces, which, they insist, must remain in Iraq until Iraqi forces
are fully capable of providing security and stability. President
Bush insisted that we must not be held to a timetable.
But let us be realistic. First of all, if the election is to
mean anything, it means that coalition troops remain in Iraq
at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. Assuming they even want
us there until that glorious day when Iraqi forces can assume
the entire burden of security, no one knows how long that will
take or if, in fact, it will ever happen. To make withdrawal
of American troops contingent upon something which may prove
to be unachievable and which, in any event, is largely out of
our control, is unwise for several reasons. First, our military
forces are over-committed and over-reliant on reserves and National
Guard. Secondly, even if we stay indefinitely, it is doubtful
that we will retain much of what is left of the coalition. Third,
Americans will grow increasingly weary of the commitment and
the expense as they eventually did during the Vietnam War. Finally,
an indefinite stay will increase the perception of American forces
as occupiers and Iraq as a puppet state.
U.S. disengagement must come sooner than later and preferably
on terms convenient to the U.S. It must not be contingent upon
objectives that may not be achieved or are outside of our control.
Iraq, remember, is a product of an unlikely partition, throwing
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, each with tribal divisions within
their respective segments of the population, together in a single
nation. It may well descend into civil war whenever we leave,
hopefully not before. But only the Iraqis acting as a unified
people can prevent this. We cannot. We can only give them the
chance.
The U.S.-led invasion, it must also be remembered, was undertaken
at great cost to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, which,
in the widely held view of the time posed a threat to its neighbors
and also to the United States, understandably edgy after 9/11.
Saddam was believed by critics as well as supporters of the war
to possess weapons of mass destruction. None being found, our
mission underwent a subtle expansion to include establishing
an island of democracy in an ocean of Muslim fundamentalism and
Arab dictatorships. That is a noble mission, to be sure, but
it is one that was scarcely, if at all, mentioned in the original
arguments in support of war. Toppling Saddam was relatively easy
but insuring that democracy takes root in Iraq, least of all
grows and spreads, is quite another matter. If we make it a condition
for disengagement in Iraq, we may be in for a very long stay.
Meanwhile, other world crises requiring U.S. attention will probably
not remain dormant. A nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran come
to mind. tOR
copyright
2005 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
|
|
