Someone like me who supported the war on human rights grounds has nowhere to hide: we didn't suppose the administration was particularly nice, but we did assume it would be competent. There isn't much excuse for its incompetence, but equally, there isn't much excuse for our naivete either.
Ignatieff has let his emotions run his great intelligence into some funny areas. He should take two aspirins and get a good night's sleep.
The US has screwed up quite a lot in Iraq but it's project there hasn't been an unmitigated disaster and is very likely to be counted, reasonably, as a success.
He is wrong about this:
Still, the United States did one thing well in Iraq, and nobody else could have done it -- it overthrew a dictator. Everything else was badly done, and some of what was done -- Abu Ghraib -- was a moral disgrace and a strategic catastrophe
Like Ignatieff, I supported the war, before and after, on human rights grounds. The murderous regime was put down and that suits me, and most Iraqis, just fine.
The war is not demonstrated in its aftermath as a "strategic catastrophe" so far. Iraqis have more freedom now than they've ever had in the country's history, ancient and modern. It's not at all clear the future for Iraq will be a failure either from a US or Iraqi point of view. Things haven't unfolded enough for us to know, have they?
There are indications it may turn out be a success. Despite calculated provocation, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have not turned to civil warfare. Shiite and Kurd leadership, for the most part, have urged a democratic vision for the country and are supporting steps in that direction. The country's economy is growing and its currency is strong, despite sabotage by internal and external enemies of Iraqi freedom. Despite threats and murder by Baathists and other terrorists people are eager to enter the police and army so they can protect their country's security. Corruption is drastically curtailed compared to the degenerate feudal state it enjoyed under Saddam. Vast numbers of civil organizations and political parties are springing up which never existed, and could not exist under the previous regime.
This is all happening under the protection of the US coalition and doesn't look like a strategic disaster to me.
The US has given itself a number of tactical "disasters" such as Abu Ghraib - which was a moral disgrace the US forces discovered themselves and moved to correct - but somehow things appear to be better in Iraq than a year and a half ago and better than six months ago.
Ignatieff seems to have forgotten the good things happening in Iraq are due to the US presence and due to its policy change as again enunciated yesterday by President Bush in Turkey:
Western nations, including my own, want to be helpful in the democratic progress of the Middle East, yet we know there are suspicions, rooted in centuries of conflict and colonialism. And in the last 60 years, many in the West have added to this distrust by excusing tyranny in the region, hoping to purchase stability at the price of liberty. But it did not serve the people of the Middle East to betray their hope of freedom. And it has not made Western nations more secure to ignore the cycle of dictatorship and extremism. Instead we have seen the malice grow deeper, and the violence spread, until both have appeared on the streets of our own cities. Some types of hatred will never be appeased; they must be opposed and discredited and defeated by a hopeful alternative - and that alternative is freedom. |
