ROGER SIMON COLUMN
OCTOBER 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - - A cornerstone of President Bush's policy in Iraq is that democracy will bring an end to the violence there.
As Vice President Cheney told CNN in June, "I think...we will, in fact, succeed in getting democracy established in Iraq, and I think when we do, that will be the end of the insurgency."
I am skeptical of this and have said so.
A number of countries - - most notably Northern Ireland - - have been democracies and have seen terror attacks continue for decades.
As Brian Jenkins, a terrorism specialist for the Rand Corp., said in an important and well-sourced article in the Los Angeles Times Sunday, history shows "there is no guarantee that political progress diminishes political violence."
Got that? Just because the good people in Iraq vote and proudly display their ink-stained fingers, does not mean the bad guys are going to diminish their bombing attacks on either Iraqi civilians or on the Iraqi and U.S. military.
It is also fundamental to Bush policy that providing people with good jobs, good homes, and a good education will end violence.
But, as I said when I was on a panel at the Harvard Club of Boston a few months ago, this is not necessarily true. No link has been found between poverty and terrorism in the Middle East. On the contrary, Osama bin Laden is a billionaire and many suicide bombers come from solidly middle-class homes.
If you believe that God has instructed you to kill people, or that God will reward you if you do, it hardly matters whether you have a good job, a good home, or can vote. These simply are factors in your actions.
One does not actually get booed at the Harvard Club of Boston, but the icy looks I got from the crowd when I said these things were the equivalent. It is not just that we want a solution to the quagmire in Iraq, we want to believe that democracy does cure all ills and that it does so not just in the United States, but everywhere.
Yet, as Los Angeles Times reporters Tyler Marshall, reporting from Washington, and Louise Roug, reporting from Baghdad, state in their lead paragraph: "Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country."
U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have noted a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between democratic advances in Iraq thus far and a reduction in insurgent attacks.
But wait. It gets worse: "Now, with Saturday's constitutional referendum appearing more likely to divide than unify the country, some within the administration have concluded that the quest for democracy in Iraq, at least in its current form, could actually strengthen the insurgency."
Nor is that just the conclusion of a couple of L.A. Times reporters. In a column in the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl quotes Kanan Mikaya, a liberal Iraqi intellectual who was "among the most persuasive advocates for a U.S. invasion of Iraq" as now saying the new constitution "is a fundamentally destabilizing document."
"To the extent that it is made to work, it will work toward fratricide," he said.
I can find few who are optimistic about the new constitution. And, of course, it is America that is getting blamed, especially for forcing a vote on the constitution so quickly.
"It's the fault of the Americans," says Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman. "They are always insisting on short deadlines. It's as if they're [making] hamburgers and fast food."
The American people do like things fast. And are increasingly in favor of
withdrawing from Iraq.
Call it a McDrawal. To go.