Bush’s red-state conservative base tends towards a pugnacious nationalism that opposed humanitarian intervention during the Clinton years. These voters were mobilised by September 11 to support two wars in short order; while they remain loyal to the president, perceived failure in Iraq will turn them in a more openly isolationist direction. Democratic voters, meanwhile, have been moving in an economically nationalist direction and are gearing up for a big fight with America’s leading trading partners in Asia. Voters in both parties have become more sympathetic to calls for closing America’s borders and reducing immigration. Many in Europe are eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush years, but it is not clear that a Democratic administration will be more broadmindedly internationalist.
By invading Iraq, the Bush administration allowed what should have been characterised as a fight with a narrow extremist ideology to escalate into something the Islamists could claim was a clash of civilisations. But that clash will play itself out in large measure in Europe, the breeding ground for Mohammed Atta, Mohammed Bouyeri and the July 7 bombers. The controversy over the cartoons underlines the fact that the US and Europe have more in common in the struggle with radical Islamism than either side would like to admit. Cooperation to prevent this escalating into a broader civilisational struggle, and to maintain a generally open, integrated international order, will require solidarity. Neither European indulgence in feelgood anti-Americanism nor a bipartisan rise in US nationalism and populism brought about by perceived failure in Iraq will help.
Francis Fukuyama, The Guardian.
It’s curious: I do not perceive in the blogosphere anything similar to "percieved failure" in Iraq. For example, you can see for example, A Blog for All, who finishes, speaking about if it was worth to remove Saddam:
I still think the answer is an emphatic yes. We’re talking about eliminating a genocidal dictator from power, whose ambitions for regional dominance threatened not only US interests in the region, but the lives of millions of people.
Especially when news like this appear quite often in the papers:
The Scotsman reports on a key piece of evidence that ties Saddam Hussein directly to the disgusting genocide of Kurds in Halabja almost twenty years ago. Memos from his personal secretary to military leaders make clear that Saddam wanted to use chemical weapons on Kurdish positions in 1987:
SADDAM Hussein ordered plans to be drawn up for a chemical weapons attack on Kurdish guerrilla bases in northern Iraq in 1987, according to a letter signed by his personal secretary. …
The planned attack appears to have been part of the 1987-88 campaign that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead and demolished hundreds of Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. In the most notorious incident, the town of Halabja was bombed with mustard and nerve gas in 1988, killing 5,000 residents.
And Captain Quarter’s finishes:
It’s fashionable these days to claim that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than after his liberation, given the civilian death toll from the fight against the insurgents. Some claim that over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion, although the methodology for those calculations has been highly suspect. In two years, Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds just for being Kurds, and destroyed their homes, forcing them to live in the hills to survive — and that doesn’t count the hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs, Shi’a, and even Sunnis who died either in droves in reprisals for suspected disloyalty or individually as Saddam and his henchmen desired. This letter reminds us that Iraqis and the world have all benefitted from the removal of this sick, twisted dictator.
By the way, the danger for Europe and US, BOTH, is earlier than the US invasion in Iraq. Islamis cells had been detained in Spain since the 90’s and other countries such as France (remember the GIA menace) or Great Britain had had problems since the late 80’s. And do not forget that the "Declaration of war against the Zionist and Crusaders" from Bin Laden is earlier than the Iraqi invasion (in fact it was signed on February 23rd 1998) and 5 years earlier than that was signed the Hizb al-Tahrir Manifesto, a true declaration of war against the West and the apostate States.
Iraq The Model also writes upon this subject:
I say yes, and that’s what most Iraqis said and still say even if they became divided over what happened later…the truth is that virtually no one wants Saddam back.
I will just ignore the weepers, whiners, teenagers and half educated naïve people and their silly rallies as I don’t want to waste time on people who can do nothing but blindly oppose everything without thinking.
I will ignore them and focus on the more important goals we want to reach here…
Life stopped and time stopped when Saddam ruled Iraq, actually that totalitarian regime was moving backwards and dragging us with it and nothing could stop the deterioration that began the moment Saddam came to power.
We had to accept the change and live with all that would come along with it whether good or bad.
The democracy we’re practicing today in Iraq is the exact opposite of what we had for decades and until three years ago. This democracy carries the essence of life, the differences, the dynamics and yes, the failures but also the seed of a better future.
Before the liberation we were suffering and we had no hope, now we are also suffering but we have hope and I see this hope even in the words of those that are cynical about the outcome of the political process; who say they hope things will be better in four years or eight years…
UPDATE: Paolo di Lautremont has written about the 48.000 boxes of documents the USA Governement has produced and that are offered to bloggers to search the news they think are more interesting. Here is the link. So as he says: GOOD HUNT!
Also Sister Toldjah has written about the Democrats a post titled: The Defeatocrats.:
Even the Democrats who were allegedly “forced” politically to vote for the Iraq war resolution (like Dem presidential candidate Senator John Kerry) have taken a decidedly negative tone on not only the war itself, but the aftermath. And the few Democrats who choose to remain optimistic about the war, like Senator Joe Lieberman, find themselves ostracized from the party’s so-called ‘mainstream’ wing.
When you’ve got a party that constantly harps on the negative (right along with the mainstream press) while refusing to emphasize the positive it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why so many question their will to win the war.
Should we ignore negative news coming out of Iraq? No. Should we whitewash it with only the positive? No. We acknowledge the problems we face, work to correct those problems, while at the same time praising the efforts and accomplishments of the US military and Iraqi and other coalition forces who are working alongside them. You have to believe you can win something in order to be able to succeed. Simply put, today’s Democrats don’t believe we can win this war yet can’t seem to find the right way to say it without sounding weak, and that’s the face they are putting forth not just to the American people, but to those abroad who want to see us fail – who want to see us lose our resolve.
Powered by Qumana