Progress In Iraq Continues...

[MMMMMM]

...despite the terrorists, and the ankle-biters and hecklers.

The foreign terrorists in Iraq appear to be losing traction and capability; the remnant Saddamite insurgents have toned things down somewhat; the Iraqi voter turnout was greater than previously; the Sunni minority approved the Constitution; Iraqis appear now to be more united against the terrorists and the insurgents; and generally speaking, things are looking up quite a bit over there. Yet you'd hardly know it if you only listen to those for whom success in Iraq would shake their world views and preconceived opinions.

There will likely be some attempted flurries of attacks around the upcoming trials of Saddam and cronies, and the free elections in December.

After that, I wonder who will lose the greater power and traction first? Will it be the lunatic and desperate terrorist insurgents in Iraq, or the earnest but misguided leftist critics overseas? My guess would be the terrorists.


"Sticking It to the "Insurgents"
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 17, 2005


When the history of freedom in the Middle East is written, this weekend’s vote on the Iraqi constitution may be remembered as a watershed moment. High voter turnout, widespread participation (and approval) by the Sunni minority, and an increasingly effective Iraqi police force all demonstrate a nation struggling toward a democratic, pluralistic future. This is the latest milepost that the Iraqi people are charting a course independent of the mostly foreign-born “insurgents” using their homeland to wage jihad against the Great Satan that purchased their nation’s liberation with its own blood – and once again, as in January’s election, the American Left is only seen attempting to minimize and delegitimize their national sovereignty.


The mainstream media have aided this process, downplaying the importance of Saturday’s vote. This time,10 million people – some two-thirds of Iraq’s eligible voters – went to the polls, a significant increase from 58 percent in January’s historic election. This did not keep the New York Times from emphasizing an alleged downturn in voters. The spike in participation came amidst the nation’s Sunni voters, who realized they had diminished their importance in a the new democracy by boycotting the previous elections. The new Iraqi constitution makes the former Ba’athist tyranny an official “democratic, federal, representative republic.” To be defeated, two-thirds of the voters in at least three of Iraq’s 18 governates had to reject the treaty, a move that gave Sunnis veto power over the document – a power most Sunnis apparently chose not to exercise. As of this writing in the early hours of Monday morning, preliminary returns showed the constitution sweeping all but two heavily Sunni “governates” (provinces). At this time, official are reporting that more than three-quarters of voters in the Sunni-rich province of Nineveh approved the constitution.


Sunnis showed an enthusiastic acceptance of this newfound freedom. Jabar Ahmad Ismail, a 75-year-old Sunni pensioner, told reporters the constitution “gives me hope in God, and in my fellow men,” before calling terrorists “infidels.” Iraqis recalled the intoxicating lure of self-determination during this election. Another voter described the second real Iraqi election in decades thus: “It’s like a party.”


A party with a rather undiscriminating guest list. Among those eligible to vote was any detainee who had not yet been placed on trial – including Saddam Hussein. U.S. forces, whom the terrorists and the Left portray as brual “occupiers,” set up voting booths in the “gulag” known as Abu Ghraib prison. (How long before Maxine Waters adopts this as a precedent for her pet project of giving the franchise to American felons?)


Otherwise, by all media accounts, American troops were nearly “invisible,” leaving the job of securing the election in the capable hands of Iraq’s 200,0000 indigenous police and footsoldiers – a force the New York Times admits is daily growing in numbers and aptitude. In some areas, Sunnis protected polls from jihadist violence.


It is the Sunni reaction that most threatens al-Qaeda’s designs for the nation. The recently published letter between Ayman Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirms what many analysts have long known: Al-Qaeda hopes to secure a beachhead in the Sunni triangle, drive the “Yankees” out of Iraq, then re-establish the caliphate in Iraq before expanding into the broader Mideast. Yes, some Sunnis oppose the constitution on religious grounds. (One Sunni voter said flatly, “It's forbidden to vote yes, because it contradicts Islamic law.”) However, most have cast their votes on political grounds – and have opted for freedom. Thus, terrorists attacked three Sunni parties that endorsed the constitution last Friday.


A religio-political organization like al-Qaeda, populated by True Believers, can only be diminished in three ways: killing its members, permanently disrupting its chain-of-command, and spoiling its recruitment appeal by rendering it ineffective. The Bush administration has been busily accomplishing all three.


Previous American sweeps have killed or captured the vast majority of al-Qaeda’s leadership. Just weeks ago, Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, reported that Osama bin Laden is trapped in the mountains, accompanied by perhaps “dozens” of followers. So isolated is the Saudi scion that his messages take months to be couriered to their destination. In his letter, Zawahiri admonishes his lieutenant that he is losing the media war among fellow Muslims, before begging him for a few hundred thousand dollars.


Now Iraq is rebuffing his organization’s plans to establish an Islamofacist theocracy. The strategic importance of this ratification has not been lost on world leaders. Condoleeza Rice pointedly told “Meet the Press” yesterday, “You defeat an insurgency politically as well as militarily. It will take time, [but] an insurgency cannot ultimately survive without a political base.” President Bush stated on Saturday: “Today's vote deals a severe blow to the ambitions of the terrorists. A clear message to the world that the people of Iraq will decide the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency.” Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called this constitution “a sign of civilization” and “a new birth.”


Yet this vote has not deprived al-Qaeda of its ultimatehope: that peaceniks will eventually cause Uncle Sam to withdraw from Iraq, just as GIs “ran and left their agents” in Vietnam on orders from a Democratic Congress. However, an engaged, democratic, and self-sufficient Iraq would deprive Zawahiri of the base-of-operations of which he fantasizes.


The coverage of the leftist, “mainstream” media must have given him hope. The Washington Post devolved into tabloid sensationalism, using a cover story putatively about how the Iraqi people ratified the constitution to recycle Sunni conspiracy theories:


“I believe they will rig the results and announce the success of the referendum, but our monitors reported to us that more than 80 percent of the voters in three governorates have said no to this draft,” Saleh Mutlaq, a spokesman for the Sunnis' National Dialogue Council, told reporters at a news conference…“This constitution is a menace to the unity and stability of Iraq, and we shall have no legal or legitimate means in order to defeat it.”


The left-wing blog the Daily Kos also hinted there may be substance behind Sunni charges of U.S. corruption in a post that concludes, “It matters what the Sunni think.” [sic.]


Other leftists share the Sunnis’ and terrorists’ disappointment. “This thing is an enormous fiasco,” said Juan Cole, who believe Sunni opposition “really undermines [the constitution’s] legitimacy, and this result guarantees the guerrilla war will go on.” Cole, a Middle East Studies “scholar” at the University of Michigan, believes President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to give Ariel Sharon cover to steal more Arab land.


On the eve of the vote, Ted Kennedy lambasted President Bush for not spelling out an exit plan, claiming Bush “pushed victory further from our reach.” John Kerry likewise blamed him for creating “a terrorist mess in Iraq that didn't exist before the invasion.” Writing for Z magazine, far-leftist Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies described the new constitution as a “text largely crafted and imposed by U.S. occupation authorities and their Iraqi dependents, and thus lacking in legal or political legitimacy.” This recalls Kerry’s words that the January vote possessed only “a kind of legitimacy.”


Thanks to the Bush administration, Iraq is establishing itself as a bulwark of democratic freedom, step-by-faltering-step. This move would insulate that nation against terrorism – which is precisely why the terrorists are fighting so hard: they recognize they are losing. A decisive loss in Iraq could, at a minimum, force al-Qaeda to change tactics; it may prove the decisive battle that dries up its appeal as a tool of terrorism (until its successor emerges). Apart from these considerations, Iraq’s chrysalis, from authoritarian fascist state to autonomous republic, should be applauded by every friend of freedom on its own merits. In the face of the most stunning political metamorphosis since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the politically motivated Left can only rage against a president it hates by lashing out at a people he has freed."

edited:I'll offer one additional comment: the last sentence of the article strikes me as a bit overdone, and the author might harp on similar themes throughout the body of the article a bit too much. Yet overall I think the article contains many good points about Iraq and progress made.

It also somehow does seem the Left is especially against not only the war, but often appears almost to be against any good news from Iraq which might derail their preconceived notions of how things are, uh, supposed to work. Maybe that's a cynical view on my part, but it rings true in my opinion: not for every member of the Left, of course, but for a great many. Psychologically speaking, these persons appear to welcome bad news out of Iraq and appear resistant to good news, because bad news would reinforce their preconceived notions whereas much good news would present a serious challenge to the integrity of those ideas.

Comments or observations, anyone?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=19863

[andyfox]

"if you only listen to those for whom success in Iraq would shake their world views and preconceived opinions."

But if we listen to our government, we hear only those for whom success in Iraq would confirm their world views and preconceived opinions. Many in the Bush administration, as you know, had long called for regime change in Iraq, well before 9/11. So to admit to any problems or difficulties would be to shake their world views and preconceived notions.

When a government goes to war, it lies about it. This government is no different. We should remain skeptical and questioning. The government is always seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you'd hardly know it if you only listen to those for whom success in Iraq would shake their world views and preconceived opinions....

When the history of freedom in the Middle East is written, this weekend’s vote on the Iraqi constitution may be remembered as a watershed moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the opening line of this article indicates, everybody has preconceived opinions about how this process is likely to shake out. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the preconceived opinions of those who are highly skeptical about the future of Iraqi democracy are rooted in insights gained from the nearly the entire corpus of academic analysis on the social and institutional foundations of democratic regimes. On the other side is the administration and hack journalists for frontpagemag.com who believe that people like freedom and therefore democracy will triumph. Seriously, one can debate the larger point but this is a terrible article - hack journalism at its worst. Let me just address a few points.

[ QUOTE ]
A religio-political organization like al-Qaeda, populated by True Believers, can only be diminished in three ways: killing its members, permanently disrupting its chain-of-command, and spoiling its recruitment appeal by rendering it ineffective. The Bush administration has been busily accomplishing all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

What planet is this guy living on? There are many signs that point to a much larger Al-Qaeda affiliated/sympathizing movement around the world - the number of foreign-born insurgents in Iraq, the attacks in England and Spain, etc. The number of Al-Qaeda members pre 9-11 was not that large by most estimates.

[ QUOTE ]
Previous American sweeps have killed or captured the vast majority of al-Qaeda’s leadership. Just weeks ago, Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, reported that Osama bin Laden is trapped in the mountains, accompanied by perhaps “dozens” of followers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is the empirical support here? Some quote from a Pakistani military spokesman? Weren't they the guys who were just telling us a year ago that AQ Khan hadn't been selling nuclear weapon components all over the world?


[ QUOTE ]
The strategic importance of this ratification has not been lost on world leaders. Condoleeza Rice pointedly told “Meet the Press” yesterday, “You defeat an insurgency politically as well as militarily. It will take time, [but] an insurgency cannot ultimately survive without a political base.” President Bush stated on Saturday: “Today's vote deals a severe blow to the ambitions of the terrorists. A clear message to the world that the people of Iraq will decide the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency.” Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called this constitution “a sign of civilization” and “a new birth.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just laughable. He wants to point out that the significance was not lost on "world leaders" and then his examples are Rice, Bush, and Al-Jaafari? Shouldn't he be saying "the signficance was not lost on the Bush administration or the head of the current Iraqi regime?"

[ QUOTE ]
The Washington Post devolved into tabloid sensationalism, using a cover story putatively about how the Iraqi people ratified the constitution to recycle Sunni conspiracy theories: “I believe they will rig the results and announce the success of the referendum, but our monitors reported to us that more than 80 percent of the voters in three governorates have said no to this draft,” Saleh Mutlaq, a spokesman for the Sunnis' National Dialogue Council, told reporters at a news conference…“This constitution is a menace to the unity and stability of Iraq, and we shall have no legal or legitimate means in order to defeat it.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. Higher up in the story he takes one positive quote from a Sunni guy at face value as an indicator of a larger body of sentiment, but now a negative quote in the Washington post is just "recycl(ing) Sunni conspiracy theories."


[ QUOTE ]
Other leftists share the Sunnis’ and terrorists’ disappointment. “This thing is an enormous fiasco,” said Juan Cole, who believe Sunni opposition “really undermines [the constitution’s] legitimacy, and this result guarantees the guerrilla war will go on.” Cole, a Middle East Studies “scholar” at the University of Michigan, believes President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to give Ariel Sharon cover to steal more Arab land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is some journalist for frontpagemag.com with no obvious credentials as an analyst of Middle Eastern politics. Juan Cole is a well-respected professor of Middle Eastern history at a top-ten research university. I have no idea where this gets the Sharon thing from, but the fact that he needs to do the "scholar" bit is laughable.

[ QUOTE ]
Apart from these considerations, Iraq’s chrysalis, from authoritarian fascist state to autonomous republic, should be applauded by every friend of freedom on its own merits. In the face of the most stunning political metamorphosis since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the politically motivated Left can only rage against a president it hates by lashing out at a people he has freed."

[/ QUOTE ]

What a telling metaphor in so many ways! For one, the chrysalis is just the cocoon, so the false imputation of change might tell us something about this guy's command of the english language. For another, the metaphor itself is quite telling of the absolute cluelessness of his overall position concerning the ways that democracies emerge and are maintained. It's a very nice image, the democratic regime just bursting forth out of the authoritarian cocoon once we've helped it a little bit by deposing Saddam. This of course brings us back to the idea of precondeived notions. Unfortunately, this type of thinking about democratic emergence went out of fashion in the 1960s among people who actually bother to study these things. But they're just "scholars" doing "research" into "history" and are clearly motivated by leftist agendas and unable to get past their preconceived notions, so why not believe some guy from frontpagemag.com instead?

[twowords]

I didn't read the article because of a preconcieved notion of its content [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. Looks like I was right.

A devestating post.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Sam,

My take is that in the last quarter or two, substantial progress has been made both in Iraq and in the war against terrorism. I don't see any leftists acknowledging this, though; rather, they seem bent on disparaging anything that indicates any progress whatoever.

Time will tell, though--and of course the road ahead remains full of pitfalls, and will host many struggles.

[Exsubmariner]

Somehow, you disappoint me, Andy. I expected a little bit more from you than the "but they think just the opposite of me so they must be wrong." This without backing up your view or devaluing theirs. And then you give the old tired "questioning authority is the highest form of American patriotism."

sigh [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Sam,

My take is that in the last quarter or two, substantial progress has been made both in Iraq and in the war against terrorism. I don't see any leftists acknowledging this, though; rather, they seem bent on disparaging anything that indicates any progress whatoever.

Time will tell, though--and of course the road ahead remains full of pitfalls, and will host many struggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on man, you can do better than that. I agree with you that there have been positive events in Iraq recently. I was highly skeptical of the situation before the Sunni compromise, but now it is looking a lot better.

Nevertheless, the article you just posted was pretty much torn up by Sam, and you can't even approach it?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Come on man, you can do better than that. I agree with you that there have been positive events in Iraq recently. I was highly skeptical of the situation before the Sunni compromise, but now it is looking a lot better.

Nevertheless, the article you just posted was pretty much torn up by Sam, and you can't even approach it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not MY article. I didn't write it, and don't defend all of it. I agree only with parts of it--and hopefully expressed that sentiment. I asked for comments and observations. Sam is no doubt correct on some points. I'm trying to look most at the overall picture.

You agree that the situation in Iraq is looking a lot better than it did not long ago, right? And key al-Qaeda leaders are continually being caught; and as Zawahiri's intercepted letter to Zarqawi indicates, al-Qaeda is experiencing internal difficulties. Maybe things are indeed looking up somewhat--I wonder if we'll hear as much from the left, but somehow I doubt it.

[andyfox]

"but they think just the opposite of me so they must be wrong."

Where did I say that?

Anyway, sorry to disappoint. I think I've said plenty about our Iraq invovlement over the last couple of years for people to know my stance. Sam H gave a better response than I did. All I wanted to point up was that if there are preconceived notions anywhere, certainly the administration has them. All one has to do is read what they had been saying about Hussein and Iraq since the mid-1990s.

[ACPlayer]

Excellent post.

The only other thing I would say to the original post is that it is interesting that the propaganda machine "analysts" spend more energy in attacking (what they call) the Left rather than actually analyzing or even conjecturing what the actual impact of the recent events is likely to be. Forgetting, in this instance, that the war is opposed by people across the spectrum, and at this time supported by mostly those who wish to parrot the Republican line.

Unfortunately, 6M frequently trots out these apologists writing as "analysts" from frontpage, worlddailynet, etc. For an otherwise intelligent person, his choice of reading materials is strange.