A few weeks ago, conservatives excoriated CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who’s been reporting from Iraq for over four years now, because he dared to tell viewers that John McCain was completely wrong about Baghdad’s safe neighborhoods and Gen. Petraeus’ “non-armed Humvee.”
Today, however, Ware appeared in-studio to discuss the war, and suddenly, the right loves him — because he denounced the Dems’ withdrawal plan, concluding it would be a “disaster.” He added, “[C]oming back now, I’m struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is. Whether you are for this war or against it, whether you’ve supported the way it’s been executed or not, it does not matter. You broke it, you’ve got to fix it now.”
Not surprisingly, some of the same conservative activists who wanted Ware fired a few weeks ago now can’t say enough about his wisdom and keen insights. It’s funny how that happens.
But Ware’s opinion, while interesting, wasn’t the real news this morning. In the same interview, Ware actually had what sounded like a fairly significant scoop.
“When I was in Diyala province, I interviewed a two-star general on camera for CNN, and he admitted for the first time from anyone in the military that they are now prepared to accept options other than democracy. Now, this is what this war was sold to the American public on. Yet, they are saying now democracy isn’t mandatory, it’s an option, and that they are prepared to see a government that can protect itself, give services to its people, and it doesn’t have to be democratic.
“In fact, the general said most of our allies in this region are not democratic. So that fundamentally addresses the root cause of why America says it went to war. And now the military is saying, well, we may not get there.”
Frankly, while I don’t much care if Ware approves or not of a withdrawal timeline, this report on giving up on establishing a democracy in Iraq is pretty big deal.
Let’s not lose sight of the big picture here — an Iraqi democracy has been the lynchpin of the entire Bush administration strategy since before the invasion even began. Under the president’s (and the neocons’) worldview, the dearth of democracy in the Middle East is a root cause for terrorism. People suffer under authoritarian regimes, they grow frustrated and resentful, and they turn to networks like al Qaeda as an outlet for their rage. If the United States engages in widespread regime change(s) in the region, and replace authoritarians with democrats, people will be content, and dictators will fall as the Arab street demands freedom.
Except it hasn’t quite worked out that way. Bringing democracy to a war-torn country with three distinct groups who don’t get along isn’t quite as easy as Chalabi said it would be. There are exactly zero countries in the Middle East looking at Iraq thinking, “Why can’t we get some of that here?”
And based on Ware’s comments this morning, we’ve now come full circle. Democracy, schmocracy, let’s get some stability. Bringing democracy to Iraq was part of the central rationale for the invasion, and now “democracy isn’t mandatory.” A vaguely-benevolent dictatorship, we’re hearing, doesn’t have to be all bad, so long as Iraq can “protect itself” and “give services to its people.”
In other words, you don’t need free elections to make the trains run on time.
No WMD, no connection to 9/11, no meaningful ties to al Qaeda, no democracy, no “domino effect” for the Middle East. War supporters are out of rationales.