The Democrats have won control of Congress, and the victory has been attributed to growing opposition against America's military adventure in Iraq. Nevertheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the administration remains firm. She says Iraq will not be abandoned. American objectives will be upheld, though the policy itself will be "adjusted." Interpreting the election results, Rice said that the American people "were not voting for anything less than success in Iraq." The Americans want to win, as always. But a fresh approach is now required. And that is why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been jettisoned.
Many observers agree that a power vacuum cannot be left in Iraq. But nobody in Washington knows what to do about the problem. After the question of Iraqi WMDs faded from view, the administration turned to building Iraqi democracy and transferring power to the Shiite majority. The absurdity of this solution should be apparent, but no workable alternative has been found. Permanent occupation of the country is unacceptable to the international community and the American public. Installing a pro-American dictator in Iraq would be hypocritical, giving weight to the claims of anti-American propaganda. Abandoning the country in any sense would betray America's friends and supporters in Iraq, however outnumbered and outgunned they may be.
Of course, it is America's national psychology that has fathered this debacle. Many nations have sustained greater proportional losses to hold strategic ground. But the American people do not have the psychological makeup to sustain an occupation or build democracy in an Arab country. In the end, Americans are not democratic imperialists who uphold the "white man's burden." Americans are shoppers and entertainment junkies. American politics now resolves itself through comedians (see The Colbert Report) who humorously cajole viewers to one party or another. The cult of political correctness, as well, prevents the American side from properly identifying the great fountainhead of Middle East violence. And if you cannot defeat the violence at its source, you cannot win. Once again, this is a problem of American national psychology.
According to Aljazeera, "Many people in the Middle East feel that the Republican losses were the price George Bush had to pay for his failures in Iraq and elsewhere." Failure, in this instance, is defined as the inability to put down violence in a Muslim country whose Shiite majority looks to Iran for "spiritual" guidance. This alone is sufficient to frighten an already violent Sunni minority into violence of its own. In the event of an American withdrawal from Iraq, the Shiites will undoubtedly establish dictatorial control over the entire country with Iranian assistance. Civil war may be part of this process, like it or not. Iran's alliance with Syria may be endangered at some point, but the alliance may be maintained through pressure from Moscow and Beijing.
If you have any doubts about the future direction of Iraq's Shiite-majority democracy, consider the fact that the Speaker of Iraq's parliament has reportedly traveled to Iran for a conference. In other words, the democratic leadership of Iraq looks to Asia and not America for political guidance. The error of Bush's formula for Iraq should be apparent from this alone. Building democracy in Iraq cannot cancel the anti-democratic and anti-American bent of Iraqi Muslims. The same is true in Europe, as well. In France we hear that a dozen or more policemen are injured every day combating the violence of Muslim youth. French officials would like to deny what is happening on French soil. They want to believe that Muslims can become French. Such an idea, however, is sheer fantasy. It is in the nature of Islam that France itself must give way. According to the French Interior Ministry, 480 incidents of violence against the police were recorded in September alone.
Bush's adventure in Iraq has been judged a failure because terrorism continues to thrive in that country. Well what did we expect? Did we suppose that the literal words of the Koran would have so little affect on Allah's faithful? As Brigitte Gabriel has explained: "This sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world is not a distortion of Islam, nor is it the creation of a few extremists who have hijacked a peaceful and tolerant religion. It is mandated by the holy writings of Islam, as interpreted by a vast majority of classical authorities." The first rule in politics is to know yourself and the second rule is to know your enemy. President Bush's policy in Iraq violated both these rules. First, he did not anticipate the predictable unraveling of American resolve. Second, he would not accept that his enemy was Islam itself - as consistently preached and practiced by those who take the Koran literally. As Brigitte Gabriel explained in her book (Because They Hate): "Muslims have been sounding the call to war for the last thirty-some years, but until 9/11 America was not listening." Does anyone recall that Arabs danced in the streets after hearing that the World Trade Center had collapsed? The U.S. government and media have actively worked to play this down. But covering up the truth will not do.
It seems the Christian world isn't cruel or ruthless enough to impose its will on Muslims. But the Muslims are, indeed, cruel and ruthless enough to impose their will on Christians (as happened in Lebanon). Consequently, the American push into Iraq has underscored America's incapacity. Al Qaeda brags of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq and openly mocks President Bush as "stupid." Bin Laden's Iraqi lieutenant rejoices over the defeat of the Republicans at the polls, vowing to blow up the White House in due course. The Democrats should take little comfort in the enemy's congratulations.
Washington D.C. is a prime target whoever controls Congress or the White House. In this situation the party of appeasement will do no better than the war party because neither have bothered to identify the enemy. The American electorate, on its side, doesn't care if the terrorists are encouraged or discouraged. The main thing, as always, is to avoid further sacrifices of blood and money. But losses will come, and they will be terrible. The incoming majority leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, says that President Bush is incompetent. But such a statement, openly offered, encourages the enemy as it demoralizes our own troops. As such, it suggests an even greater incompetence.
