On the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, it’s hard to know where to start reflecting. The facts are all-too-familiar — the bloodshed, lies, the misjudgments, the exploitation, the deterioration. It’s nothing we haven’t mulled over before.
Consider, however, Kadhim al-Jubouri’s perspective.
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: “I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day.”
My friend Cliff Schecter summarized this nicely: “Try and imagine how truly horrible it must be. Something you wanted with all your heart, and this is the result? You’d rather have a homicidal despot in charge than the U.S. Government?”
Mr. al-Jubouri is, of course, just one person, but his perspective apparently is not unique. A new poll shows that four in five Iraqis have little or no confidence in U.S.-led forces. Only a third want Americans to withdraw immediately, but most Iraqis nevertheless believe that the U.S. presence is making security worse, not better.
ABC News, meanwhile, found that the number of Iraqis who call it “acceptable” to attack U.S. or coalition forces has soared from 17% in early 2004 to 51% now.
Apparently, all of this is making the White House a bit touchy.
Consider Tony Snow’s perspective, from this morning.
During this morning’s press gaggle, Tony Snow told reporters that Bush will use the speech to attack the House plan for Iraq as a “recipe for defeat” that would “provide a victory for the enemy.”
CNN’s Ed Henry told Snow that since he was attacking the House plan, he should explain the Bush administration’s “recipe for success.” According to Henry, Snow “tried to turn it around on me,” asking Henry what his recipe for success was. When Henry objected to Snow’s question, Snow told him to “zip it.”
Henry reported, “Snow later apologized. He said he felt that was inappropriate for him to say that to me. But I point it out because I think it shows the White House a little bit on the defensive this morning about this anniversary.”
“Zip it”? The pressure must really be getting to Snow; he’s relying on an Austin Powers bit.
On a more serious note, former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) describes the lessons that should be drawn from this nightmare for the future.
First, treat jihadist terrorism more like organized crime than traditional warfare. By declaring “war on terrorism” we made the fatal mistake that it could be crushed using conventional warfare and massed armies. We clearly had the legal and moral right to overturn the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda as it planned and carried out the 9.11 attacks. Even so, the democratization of an ancient tribal society is proving hugely more difficult than driving the Taliban out of Kabul. Indeed, it seems set on returning. Instead, we should create NATO II, an organization combining the intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and special forces of Western democracies to coordinate the crushing of jihadist cells.
Second, liberate the U.S. from dependence on Persian Gulf oil. We can then sharply reduce the U.S. military presence in the region and remove the single most important iincentive for jihadism. A consortium of oil consuming nations can agree with regional oil producers to protect the continued flow of oil to world markets. The U.S. should not be the default guarantor of oil supplies. We would also help rid ourselves of the hypocrisy of “bringing democracy to the Middle East” even as we support Saudi Arabia and other oligarchies, and we would be at greater liberty to support genuine democratic voices in the region.
Third, restore principle to American foreign policy. Neoconservatives who dominate the Bush administration have used the Wilsonian rhetoric of “democratic idealism” even as they pursue the most cynical and dishonest policies. These policies, including covert support for highly undemocratic regimes and factions, repression of dissent, and cynical manipulation of local politics, are hidden from the American people but are well known to the people of the countries where we carry them out. We must regain our moral authority in the world by living up to our own high ideals and Constitutional principles.
Fourth, engage the nations of the world in achieving security for the global commons. Security in the 21st century now means much more than it did in the Cold War 20th century. It includes security and openness of markets, security of the environment and reversal of global warming, security of energy supplies, security of livelihood, and the security of healthy communities. The U.S. is expected to understand the new century and lead the world in replacing narrow notions of national security with the much greater appreciation for the security of the global commons.
Good advice. Too bad the White House probably wants Hart to “zip it.”