The Bush administration, under intense pressure to deal with mounting violence in Iraq and rising domestic criticism of the war there, said today that it was working “collaboratively” with Iraqi leaders to find better ways forward and had issued them no ultimatums.
But amid a ferment of speculation that the administration was considering new approaches, losing patience with the government in Baghdad and contemplating a series of deadlines for progress, one high-ranking Iraqi urged the coalition’s political leaders to avoid “panic.”
In London, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih of Iraq said that Prime Minister Tony Blair had assured him that Britain would “hold its nerve” in Iraq. But Mr. Salih also warned against British and American decision-makers giving way to “panic.”
“I’m obviously concerned about the debate both in the United States and in Europe, I have to say, because there is too much of the pessimistic tone to this debate, even I would say in certain circles a defeatist tone,” he said, according to news agencies.
What do you expect the attitude of the common Iraqi to be when he watches, hears or reads about the fairly wide anti-war movement in the west? When there are Americans who say America is wrong or say the war isn't for a just cause and when Americans say the US presence in Iraq is bad, and when that is the only side of the image the media focuses on, it becomes an invitation for Iraqis to resist this presence and there's no doubt many will answer the invitation whether with words or violent action since they will get the impression that they're legitimately resisting something bad.
We have little in our culture about compromise or working-out-our-differences-peacefully. Radical solutions often seem more tempting to the ordinary, less educated people. When everyone, and I mean everyone, keeps telling them America is their enemy, the common reaction would certainly involve violent means of expression...yes, that's our common way in showing our disagreement with others in this part of the world. It sucks, it's backward and it's savage but it's the fact and it will not change overnight, such changes happen slowly.
Bush constantly emphasises that the spread of democratic processes, pluralism and support for moderate forces will eventually work against the terrorists. So does the NIE, not just once but in several places.
It says democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations during the next five years will drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. There is a risk that such reforms could be destabilising in the transition period, but that's the case whenever countries move towards democracy.
For those who say the war in Iraq has spread terrorism, surely the October 2001 invasion of the terrorists' home base, Afghanistan, had already done that. The 2002 bombings in Bali happened before Iraq, as did the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and many other terrorist incidents.
I know these facts are quoted by Bush and John Howard, yet they are still facts and the logic that flows from them remains logical. Jihadism took off way before Iraq and there is no reason to think it needed Iraq to explode.
There is another, deeper, problem here. The NIE states: "We assess that the Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists." Well, let's assume that's correct. My question is: And? What follows from that assessment? Israel is also a cause celebre for jihadists. Does that mean we should abandon it? If the answer is: "No, that's a ridiculous proposition", then it is logically equally ridiculous in the case of Iraq.
But, still, doesn't this NIE assessment contradict Bush when he says US policy and actions have made the world safer from terrorism? Not necessarily. The US homeland has not been attacked despite obvious efforts by al-Qa'ida to do so.
Furthermore, you have to consider the consequences if no such action had been taken, if there had been no cause celebre such as the attack on Afghanistan and the attack on Iraq. Non-action has its own consequences. There is a strong case to be made, and certainly one I support, that non-action is exactly what caused the original growth and strength of jihadism in the lead-up to 9/11. Would the world have been safer if we had continued to avoid retaliatory action? I don't think so.
