Boot v. Wheatcroft on Iraq

Although you’ve [the moderator] asked me to reply to Geoffrey’s claim that “the whole ‘democratization project’ is a fantasy,” I’d like to begin by responding to the sentence in Geoffrey’s posting that immediately follows: “Nor does it seem to have occurred to the zealots who dreamt up the war that, even were forcible democratization feasible, it might not actually be desirable in terms of the American national interest, and that genuinely democratic elections in Iraq — or Iran or the Palestinian territories — would be likely to have outcomes highly unpalatable to Washington.” Since you want a clash, I’ll oblige by taking exception to Geoffrey’s casual slur: to wit, that this war was “dreamt up” by “zealots.” I know this has become part of the accepted mythology, but is this really a helpful way to characterize such disparate and distinguished supporters of the invasion as Fouad Ajami, Peter Beinart, Paul Berman, David Brooks, Eliot Cohen, Ivo Daalder, Les Gelb, Vaclav Havel, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff, Martin Indyk, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bernard Lewis, Michael O’Hanlon, Ken Pollack, Dennis Ross, Natan Sharansky, Tom Friedman, George Will, Fareed Zakaria, and the editors of the Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, and Wall Street Journal? To say nothing of politicians like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jose Maria Aznar, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Michael Howard, William Hague, and John Howard. Are they all “zealots”? What about the overwhelming majority of Americans who supported the war when it began? More zealots? Or were the zealots only those people within the U.S. government who supported the war: the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, Steve Hadley, and Tommy Franks? I can’t speak for my fellow “zealots” but as someone who supported the invasion-and who, unlike some others, is still willing to admit it-I have always assumed that “genuine democratic elections” in Iraq or anywhere else might well produce outcomes that were “highly unpalatable to Washington.” After all, I’m far from happy with many of the actions taken by freely elected governments in Paris, Berlin, Ankara-and, for that matter, Washington D.C. Why should Baghdad be any different? The point that Geoffrey elides is: Was the pre-2003 status quo in the Middle East a palatable one? Obviously not, since it was this status quo that produced the 9/11 hijackers and numerous other terrorists and tyrants. And despite the terrible time we’ve had in Iraq in the past four years, I am still convinced that in the long run greater liberalization and democratization will change the region for the better. And I’m not the only one. Let me quote an article from the current issue of Newsweek: “For all his intellectual shortcomings, Bush recognized that the roots of Islamic terror lie in the dysfunctions of the Arab world. Over the last 40 years, as the rest of the globe progressed economically and politically, the Arabs moved backward. Decades of tyranny and stagnation-mostly under the auspices of secular, Westernized regimes like those in Egypt and Syria-have produced an opposition that is extreme, religiously oriented and, in some cases, violent. Its ideology is now global, and it has small bands of recruits from London to Jakarta. But at its heart it is an Arab phenomenon, born in the failures of that region. And it is likely only to be cured by a more open and liberal Arab culture that has made its peace with modernity. Look for example at two non-Arab countries, Malaysia and Turkey, whose people are conservative and religious Muslims. Both places are also reasonably successful economies, open societies and functioning democracies. As a result, they don’t produce swarms of suicide bombers. Iraq after Saddam presented a unique opportunity to steer history on a new course.”