EN ROUTE TO BAGHDAD — Some­one asked me why should I ques­tion J.‘s opti­mism and how many Iraqis kiss­ing me would it take for me to be con­vinced. There’s no ques­tion many, many Iraqis (espe­cially the Kurds) are happy that Sad­dam is gone. But it’s not so sim­ple as that.
In Tikrit, and in other places such as Mosul, a lot of peo­ple aren’t happy to see Amer­i­can forces — and not just because those forces have failed to pro­vide secu­rity. The sit­u­a­tion in the cities is volatile, and eth­nic hatreds could flare into civil war with­out too big of a push. Already, we’ve heard reports that Kurds have begun dri­ving Arabs out of vil­lages around Kirkuk, reclaim­ing their old lands. The reck­less­ness of the PUK and the KDP in post-Saddam Iraq could bring Turkey into the mix when the United States draws down its forces. No one knows what’s going to hap­pen, and the ini­tial giddy opti­mism I encoun­tered is giv­ing way to guarded anx­i­ety about the future.
I don’t believe the United States went to war to make the Iraqis happy. It didn’t go to war to free them. The United States went to war for geopo­lit­i­cal self-interest (See “Why Iraq?” on B2I for a look at some of the rea­sons.) If the ques­tion is “Are the Iraqis happy that Sad­dam is gone?” the answer is undoubt­edly yes — most of them, any­way. But that opens up a host of other ques­tions that will have to be answered in time. It is much, much too early to declare the peace won and the sac­ri­fice in blood and trea­sure a wor­thy invest­ment in Iraq’s and the United States’ futures.
The anti-war crowd (in which I usu­ally include myself) has often under­es­ti­mated or under­stated the gen­uine good that came out of this war, i.e., the removal of a tyrant. But the pro-war crowd has equally under­es­ti­mated the dan­gers of the after­ef­fects of this war: insta­bil­ity in the region, alien­ation of allies, increased risk of ter­ror­ist attacks, etc. Yes, the Iraqis are free — free to turn on their neigh­bors and kill them. Yes, the fear of vis­its from the Ba’ath Party has been removed, but now they fear armed gangs steal­ing their homes. This is still a nation in ter­ror, and a sta­ble, inclu­sive gov­ern­ment is a long way off.
If the goal is estab­lish­ing a rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­racy, pow­dered wigs and all, that’s likely to fail. Iraq in 10 years will more likely resem­ble author­i­tar­ian Egypt than friendly, par­lia­men­tary Canada. Would that be bet­ter than Sad­dam? Of course, absolutely. Is that what the Iraqis expect and deserve? Emphat­i­cally no. Would such an out­come make the region more sta­ble and the United States safer? No one knows, and any­one — includ­ing me — who says they do is speak­ing from beliefs and assump­tions rather than a pos­ses­sion of data.
I’m en route to Bagh­dad today (Thurs­day) and will file back what the sit­u­a­tion is there.
*Tech­ni­cal Note*
Due to a snafu with the send­mail pro­gram on my server, two dis­patches may have been missed. I believe it’s been resolved now. I apol­o­gize for the inconvenience.