I am late to do so, but I want to challenge Colbert King’s silly rant in Saturday’s Washington Post. King connects three headline dominating stories relating to the liberation of Iraq- military casualties, Richard Clarke, and Iraqi ingratitude- to argue that our presence in Iraq is for nothing. In fact, it is King’s reasoning that amounts to nothing.
King begins with an emotional description of a young girl weeping on the coffin of Jason Ford, her uncle who was killed in action in Iraq. He notes that the, “… heartbreaking funeral service has been replicated more than 560 times across the country since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago. There are thousands more members of the U.S. armed forces who must now live out their years with broken bodies. And America, because of Iraq, will soon be $100 billion poorer”. He quotes Irene Ford, the dead soldier's stepmother, "Why are our children dying? What is the reason for this young boy to lose his life?"
King then introduces Clarke, taking care to distance himself from the ego and self-promotion that he admits lace the pages of Clarke’s book. He nonetheless gives his imprimatur to Clarke’s argument that the liberation of Iraq was tangential, unnecessary and, “invigorated the radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide and also blew the chance to strike a deadly blow against al Qaeda.” King continues, “By that reckoning, Jason Ford and other American men and women in service to their country died in Iraq for no good reason." He asserts, "That damning judgment answers Irene Ford’s bitter questions.”
King writes, “What have we bought with the tremendous investment of American blood and treasure in Iraq? We have exchanged Hussein and his Baath Party thugs for today's identity politics being practiced by the Shiite Muslim majority, the minority Sunni Muslims and the Kurds. Even as our troops come under rocket attacks, we are busy sprucing up the Iraqi nation with jobs and public works projects that are the envy of America's cities.” As though to clinch the argument, King laments that American lives have been lost to liberate, “the likes of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, now the most important Shiite cleric in Iraq, who, despite our great sacrifices for his country, won't stoop to give American proconsul L. Paul Bremer or any other American a five-minute audience”.
Neither King nor Clarke, makes a compelling argument against the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. If the Iraq front is tangential in the war against terrorism, why are Islamists filtering into that country and taking time to attack our troops with rockets? If the liberation of Iraq is unnecessary in the war against terrorism, why aren’t the Islamists directing all resources away from Iraq and into the necessary fronts in the war? That King and Clarke do not recognize the threat that a free Iraq poses to the Islamist agenda does mean that the threat doesn’t exist. A more telling indicator that we are on the right track is that Islamists resist our objectives in Iraq.
King expects of a democratic process in Iraq something different from our experience in America. Think about it, King is a liberal Deputy Editor of the Editorial Page of the liberal Washington Post, and he is complaining about identity politics. Would King dare argue that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, NOW and CAIR are unworthy of democratic freedom? Identity politics is nothing more than factionalism, a problem that was considered by the framers of the Constitution and addressed repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. That factionalism rears its ugly head in Iraq is neither a surprise, nor a good reason to deny the Iraqi people freedom.
Most absurdly, King expresses the belief that we are in Iraq for the sake of gratitude. That he uses the militant language of an Ayatollah to argue against liberation of the Iraqi people is as revealing of his thickheaded approach to that country as it is of his ignorance of Islam. The United States spends billions of dollars on social welfare programs, the recipients of which are statistically more likely than non-recipients to engage in criminal behavior. Has King ever argued that such ingratitude should result in an end to social welfare and democratic freedom? It is antithetical to the teaching of Islam that Christian intervention is necessary for the freedom and prosperity of an Islamic country. Muslim clerics are the last people from whom to expect expressions of credit or adulation directed toward the United States. Freedom’s trumpet sounds through the daily interaction of our soldiers with Iraqi civilians. Those civilians do have gratitude for our efforts, a gratitude born of hope.
The United States is liberating Iraq. The job is not complete and the work continues. Jason Ford did not die in vain, but for a just and important cause. More soldiers will be killed in Iraq and other fronts in the war against terrorism as Islamist’s seek to thwart any example of freedom in the Islamic world. The liberation of Iraq and the establishment of a representative government in that country will build momentum for governmental reform throughout the Middle East.
Before Colbert King questions the merits of Iraqi freedom or the price paid for such freedom by brave American soldiers, he should consider the 300,000 political prisoners executed by Hussein in his last ten years in power. Instead of sharing with his audience the venomous words of a Grand Ayatollah, he could share the grief and regret of Iraqis who survive Hussein's victims... that the United States did not act sooner.
Posted by publius at March 29, 2004 06:57 PM