Never was a good concept and good policy so poorly explained, executed with such apparent mediocrity, and subjected to such condemnation by dint of its own authors. The transformation of the Middle East -- and indeed of Arab and Islamic culture -- is the grand mission of our age, and if it is discredited from the start, then we, our children, and especially the people of that region will suffer grievously for it.I'm not as pessimistic as he is about the final verdict of the American people, and I disagree that the reconstruction of Iraq is mediocre in execution. But as I wrote previously (scroll down), Bush should have been on TV every week with bullet points and progress reports, but he has left it up to pundits and bloggers to connect the dots in his various policy statements. Maybe he didn't want to use Roosevelt as an example because he was a Democrat? Who knows. Thank God for bloggers is all I can say.
The slow turning of the American public against the Iraq war will be a slow turning against that mission. It's as if Truman, having set the nation against international communism, proceeded to thoroughly botch the opening salvos of the Cold War, thereby discrediting the idea of armed enmity with the Soviet Union and making Henry Wallace look like the voice of sensible moderation by comparison. Of course, that parallel only goes so far: the American public felt that he did botch Korea (history's vindication came much later), but it was willing to support a continuation of his fundamental policy concepts vis a vis communism for decades to come nonetheless. Why? Because that concept was endorsed by the entire mainstream of American politics. I leave it to the more knowledgeable of my readers to discuss whether that was by design or accident. Today's grand policy concept has certainly not been endorsed by the entire mainstream of American politics: it didn't happen by accident, but it should have happened by design -- or at the least, the attempt should have been made.
UPDATE: Maybe Tony Blair can show Bush how it's done.
Imagine you are PM. And you receive this intelligence. And not just about Iraq. But about the whole murky trade in WMD. And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from historical fact. That Saddam's regime has not just developed but used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under the noses of the UN Inspectors. And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing. And I look at Saddam's country and I see its people in torment ground underfoot by his and his sons' brutality and wickedness. So what do I do? Say "I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch its wrong?" Leave Saddam in place but now with the world's democracies humiliated and him emboldened?
You see, I believe the security threat of the 21st century is not countries waging conventional war. I believe that in today's interdependent world the threat is chaos. It is fanaticism defeating reason. Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse. Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then? And if it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in there helping confront it, not because we are America's poodle, but because dealing with it will make Britain safer.
<< Home