QandO

May 17, 2004

Crocodile tears
Posted by McQ

Foud Ajami, in the WSJ Opinion-Journal, points out the following:

Consider a tale of three cities: In Fallujah, there are the beginnings of wisdom, a recognition, after the bravado, that the insurgents cannot win in the face of a great military power. In Najaf, the clerical establishment and the shopkeepers have called on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to quit their city, and to "pursue another way." It is in Washington where the lines are breaking, and where the faith in the gains that coalition soldiers have secured in Iraq at such a terrible price appears to have cracked. We have been doing Iraq by improvisation, we are now "dumping stock," just as our fortunes in that hard land may be taking a turn for the better. We pledged to give Iraqis a chance at a new political life. We now appear to be consigning them yet again to the same Arab malignancies that drove us to Iraq in the first place.

I agree with his assessment. In Fallujah, we demonstrated the ability and will to take on the radicals and defeat them. In Najaf, we showed the will but also the sensitivity to their cultural icons which have the Iraqis in that town telling Al Sadar and his thugs to take their nonsense elsewhere. So what is Ajami talking about then?

We have stumbled in Abu Ghraib. But the logic of Abu Ghraib isn't the logic of the Iraq war. We should be able to know the Arab world as it is. We should see through the motives of those in Cairo and Amman and Ramallah and Jeddah, now outraged by Abu Ghraib, who looked away from the terrors of Iraq under the Baathists. Our account is with the Iraqi people: It is their country we liberated, and it is their trust that a few depraved men and women, on the margins of a noble military expedition, have violated. We ought to give the Iraqis the best thing we can now, reeling as we are under the impact of Abu Ghraib--give them the example of our courts and the transparency of our public life. What we should not be doing is to seek absolution in other Arab lands.

The media and political feeding frenzy that is Abu Ghraib is being allowed (and I use that term very purposely) to overwhelm all of our accomplishments to date and to cloud the morality of our involvement. Because of that, the US finds itself in a very tough and possibly dangerous situation in that area of the world.

Let's face it ... Abu Ghraib was a debacle. But it is not indicative nor symbolic of why we're there or what we're there to accomplish (and if I believed otherwise, I'd have to quit this country). Its a hideous anomaly. Its a cancer which needs to be excised. But it is also an event which political opponents (and enemies) are using to the maximum to discredit what the US and what it has accomplished.

The two things we ought to be doing:

1. As Ajami points out: "We should see through the motives of those in Cairo and Amman and Ramallah and Jeddah, now outraged by Abu Ghraib, who looked away from the terrors of Iraq under the Baathists." Precisely, and we ought to be reminding them daily of the fact that while the 500,000 were going to their mass graves these people never voiced a scintilla of "outrage" over those atrocities. This is all false outrage and crocodile tears and we should dismiss it as that.

2. Just as important: "...give them the example of our courts and the transparency of our public life. What we should not be doing is to seek absolution in other Arab lands". Again, spot on. Show them how we confront, investigate and punish wrong-doing. Make it transparent, swift and sure.

But there's a third part, and that's on the home front. It is important that we don't let this remain the image and symbol of America's involvement in Iraq.

That's going to require something I'm not sure those of today's political stripe have ... restraint. No matter what political gold the opposition to Bush may find in this debacle, they need to restrain themselves from playing politics with it. We have to move on in this country and that includes the politicians and the press.

We have to remember that we have troops in combat and that we're at war and could play the price for the politics of Abu Ghraib.

I hold no illusions as to whether the press will do so. They seem to recognize we're at war only if it is convenient for them.

And, unfortunately, I'm cynical enough not to have any real hope that opposition politicians will quit playing politics with this event which so hurts the image of their country.

That puts this nation in a terrible position. Yes, in both cases, both sets -- politicians and the press -- have the freedom and right to voice their opinions. They have young men and women in harm's way right now to ensure that.

The question is, will they exercise those hard won and defended freedoms and rights responsibly or will they do so irresponsibly?

TrackBack