Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, February 12, 2007
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
On Being Greeted As Liberators
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In 1917, most Russians were not Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were a minority, but they were fanatical and ruthless. So they prevailed -- and for most of the 20th century Russians lived and died under Communist oppression.

In 1933, most Germans were not Nazis. The Nazis were a minority, but they were fanatical and ruthless. Tens of millions would perish before Hitler’s dream of world conquest collapsed.

Today, it is not clear that most Iraqis want to slaughter other Iraqis and return Iraq to despotism. But a fanatical and ruthless minority does.

This minority -- actually two rival minorities, one Sunni, one Shia -- enjoys the support of both al-Qaeda and the regime that rules Iran. That is not surprising. What is: the fact that such mass murderers are neither opposed nor even seriously condemned by “the international community.” Instead, in the Middle East, Europe and even America, opposition and condemnation are meted out in fullest measure to those reluctant to quit the fight against the mass murderers.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, Iraqi parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi declined to criticize Americans who favor abandoning Iraqis like him. (He is a democrat who has paid dearly for his beliefs: Two of his sons were gunned down in front of him by terrorists.) A debate over Iraq, Alusi said, is something one should expect in a free country such as America. It is an expression of “values” he still hopes to see take root in his country as well.

According to data Stephens cited, Alusi is not alone. The University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research found that between 2004 and 2006 the number of Iraqis who support the idea of an Islamic state declined from 30 percent to 22 percent. Meanwhile, those who favor separating religion and politics rose from 27 percent to 41 percent. In Baghdad, where sectarian violence has been most frequent, the number of people who see themselves as Iraqis first and Muslims second has doubled to 60 percent. And the percentage of Iraqis who say it “very important” for their nation to be a democracy has risen from 59 percent to 65 percent.

This suggests that neither Sunni nor Shia extremists are winning hearts and minds. Then again, they may not need to so long as they can put knives to throats and electric drills to skulls.

Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria is among those who blame the violence on America. “We gave them a civil war,” he said. That ignores both the demonstrated power of fanatical minorities and the ancient ethno-religious enmities that were constrained but not crushed during the decades Iraq was under Saddam Hussein’s jackboot.

The syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer also is right to argue that there is a difference between “giving” a civil war and failing to prevent one.

But I disagree with Krauthammer – a circumstance to which I am unaccustomed – when he writes: “Iraqis were given their freedom and yet many have chosen civil war.” Only a small minority of Iraqis, I think, have made that choice. Most simply have no idea how to defend the liberties suddenly thrust upon them.

John Burns of The New York Times, the best reporter covering Iraq, recently told NBC’s Tim Russert that while “American troops were greeted as liberators” immediately after the overthrow of Saddam, enthusiasm for the intervention diminished quickly once it became clear that U.S. forces could not -- or would not -- protect Iraqis from the terrorists in their midst.

Yes, it would have been wonderful had Iraqis spontaneously organized their own defense. But is it so astonishing that they did not? Burns said that longtime observers of Iraq “completely miscalculated the impact of 30 years of violent, brutal repression on the Iraqi people and their willingness, in President Bush's phrase, ‘to stand up’ for themselves, to take authority, to take risks … Iraq was, by a long way, saving only North Korea, the nastiest place I've ever been. It was a truly terrible place …”

Now, a last-ditch effort is being made to eliminate the terrorists from Baghdad, to give the majority of Iraqis a safe space to come together in opposition to a fanatical and ruthless minority that believes it can pave a path to power with carnage and chaos.

There is ample precedent for that belief. Mithal al-Alusi and others like him can only pray that Americans will find the will and a way to help decent Iraqis – a majority, I think -- carve out an exception.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Stay the course?
Clifford D. May, do you have a plan, or just a wish?

Liberal G. Oodman
Do you have a point, or just a pants full?

optimistic column
The Iraqi people oppose dividing their society along religious lines? We should take advantage of that by holding elections. It would be a lot easier dealing with secular leaders than the people currently in power. How did they get there again?

Another story on Iraq
That fails to even mention the words Kurd or Kurdistan.
A story that fails to point out that there are as many Kurds within the borders of Iraq as Arab Sunnis.
A story that fails to point out that Kurds established a democracy in 1992 on their own, thanks to the no-fly zone.
A story that fails to point out that 98% of Kurds voted for an independent Kurdistan in a referendum on 1/31/05.
A story that fails to tell the full story of Iraq.

"Extremists"?
Cliff May says that stable democracy in Iraq is being threatened by what he calls "a minority of extremists." Yet then he himself cites numbers that 22% of Iraqis favor an Islamic state. Most of whom are armed, like everybody else in Iraqi society. That works out to some 5 million people out of a population of 26 million. What do you propose to do with 5 million armed advocates of Islamic theocracy, put them all in concentration camps?

And in Baghdad, he claims 60% of residents now see themselves as "Iraqis first." Wow, that means that "only" one out of every three citizens of Baghdad disagrees with that.

With numbers like that, you can't stigmatize them all as "a minority of extremists." One-third of a population aren't "extremists," they are a potent political force that can't be wished away. In America, the Christian evangelicals are a smaller percentage than that, Mr. May; would you like to call them "a minority of extremists" too?

These Iraqi "extremists" enjoy considerable support. Maliki is busily turning Iraq into a Shiite-dominated country--where is the outcry from all those secular-minded Shiites? And why do you suppose we didn't take out al-Sadr and his militia? Because we feared that the entire population of Sadr City would side with him against us.

Yes, there are definitely a sizable number of pro-democracy Iraqis. But it's not an overwhelming number, and democracy depends on a more thoroughgoing "consent of the governed" than 60%.

Liberators "HA"
In 2006, most Americans were not Conservative's. The Conservative's were a minority, but they were fanatical and ruthless. So they lied about WMD's in Iraq and took us into a senseless war that has cost the live's of over 3,200 servicemen and women, plus injured another 22,000 troops. And let's not forget the 100,000 innocent Iraqis that have been killed in the name of the great liberator George W. Bush. The Conservative party was thrown out of power by the people of this great nation, because the people finally woke up and saw that this whole thing has gone terribly wrong.

82nd Airborne Div
You wrote:

"In 2006, most Americans were not Conservative's."

Conservative's what?

You compounded your improper use of the possessive with the following tortured "logic":

"The Conservative's were a minority, but they were fanatical and ruthless. So they lied about WMD's in Iraq and took us into a senseless war that has cost the live's (you have a real love affair with the possessive don't you?)of over 3,200 servicemen and women, plus injured another 22,000 troops."

Are you saying that the US was maneuvered into Iraq by "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" in 2006? Because I was pretty sure that I read some news accounts of the US invading Iraq sometime before that. Oh right...that was probably the liberal press misleading me.

Also, are you sure that these mysterious "fanatical and ruthless Conservative's" actually lied about the WMD? I mean lied in the sense that they really knew that there were no WMD but just told everybody that there were?

Boy, those "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" sure are devious. And smart too! They managed to convince a bunch of Democratic Senators to vote for the war when the really smart liberals knew that there were no WMD but were unable to overcome the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's".

And the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" also managed to convince most of the UN to vote for resolutions requiring Saddam to get rid of the WMD that all of the really smart liberals knew he didn't have.

Then, the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" managed to convince the national intelligence agencies of several of the worlds most developed nations that Saddam had WMD.

And, as if all this weren't enough, the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" managed to convince the smartest man who ever lived, Bill Clinton, to believe the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" lies and make public statements about the WMD that all of the really smart liberals knew didn't exist. These "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" did that way back before the invasion even started to help set up their evil plan that would come to fruition in 2006. Or March of 2003 if you want to believe the lying liberal press!

I mean really, if the "ruthless and fanatical Conservative's" are that smart, what chance do the rest of us have? Maybe you should just curl up in the corner with your bong until it all goes away. After all, it's useless to resist them...

Lon
writes: Monday, February, 12, 2007 2:23 PM
optimistic column
The Iraqi people oppose dividing their society along religious lines? We should take advantage of that by holding elections. It would be a lot easier dealing with secular leaders than the people currently in power. How did they get there again?
======================================

Most have not lived in Iraq for years, decades even.

My silly thinking tells me, if you want a government to work- let it be of the people, not outsiders....but, that is just me.

Ben
I agree, one of the major errors which colored the thinking of the CIVILIAN leadership in the DOD leading up to the war was the Ahmad Chalabi would be able to generate Iraqi forces large enough to win. Didn't happen Couldn't happen.Chalabi spent his time in London, no Iraq but the Clinton people (an the Bush folks) gave him a hell of a lot of cash for his so called "intelligence".

Just think of the power
Bill Clinton has over our government--6 years after he left office, he is still leading the country and responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

Wow! Maybe if his wife is elected, that paragon of government will really lead the country.

Saudis & al Qaeda vs. Iran & Hezbollah
"This minority -- actually two rival minorities,
one Sunni, one Shia -- enjoys the support of
both al-Qaeda and the regime that rules Iran."

Actually, Iran supports the Shia insurgency & Hezbollah whereas Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni insurgency & al Qaeda.

You'd think that President Bush would recognize both as mortal enemies, but instead we're helping the Saudi-Sunni-al Qaeda axis. Meanwhile, these "allies" shoot down our helicopters and conduct suicide bombings in Baghdad and Western Iraq.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.