January 28, 2005

The Realists' False Eschatology, I

With the Iraqi elections almost upon us, you might think that the West, as a whole, would be pulling for the Iraqi people. After all, American troops have died (and will continue to die) to liberate that country from one of the most brutal dictators to rule any land since the bloody death of Hitler, and the undeserved natural deaths of Stalin and Mao. Iraqis, of course, have paid dearly for harboring hopes of a better tomorrow, first under Saddam, and now at the hands of Baathist terrorists our media insist on calling “insurgents.” Given the nature of dictatorships, which in structure and execution resemble the Mafia more than any legitimate form of government, Iraq’s climb out of the depths of Baathist sadism is little less than remarkable.

But, as we all know, the whole world isn’t pulling for Iraq. In fact, significant segments of the American political class, joined by assorted academics and pundits, are openly hoping for catastrophe. Others, while not desiring failure, dismiss all progress in Iraq with a wave of the hand, declaring the Middle East’s future as pre-destined and immutable with all the intellectual subtlety of a seventeenth-century Calvinist divine or nineteenth-century Marxist radical. The free will of individuals counts for nothing, we’re told, when it’s met by the Realists’ own Hegelian march of history. Things cannot get better; nothing can improve; America is powerless against such world-dominating forces.

But, you may say, those warning the President against launching a crusade for democracy are only modern-day Jeremiahs wondering the intellectual deserts of Neoconservative think tanks and publication boards, declaring the follies of modern kings. But Jeremiah, you’ll recall, had a higher purpose in mind. In fact, he had a higher power in mind, a genuinely immutable historical force that, paradoxically, allows men and nations to go astray – again, by the exercise of their own free will. And Jeremiah’s objects of scorn weren’t those who proposed to change the corrupt, sclerotic status quo, but those who supported it. He came not to comfort those who, like modern-day liberals and some conservatives, stood athwart history yelling “stop,” but to discomfort them, to give hope to the oppressed, and to, in effect, change the course of history.

The leader in today's WSJ ($) places Sunday's Iraqi elections in proper historical perspective. Progress in Iraq is not, as domestic cynics would have us believe, negligible. In fact, the degree of cooperation among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is remarkable, as is the eagerness of Iraqis to participate in the election. Just today, via Power Line, Iraqi authorities announced the arrest of two more close associates of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hindrocket goes so far as to speculate that Zarqawi himself may be in custody, as earlier rumors held. Let's hope so.

The Journal's editorial appropriately accords Zarqawi the importance he deserves, mentioning him in the opening paragraphs:

For an endorsement of the importance of Iraq's elections this Sunday, don't believe President Bush, Tony Blair or Ayad Allawi. Merely listen to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader in Iraq who issued an audiotape this week saying that "We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it."

Clearly Zarqawi believes the vote matters. Perhaps he senses that once Iraqis have chosen their own leaders, his chances of inciting chaos and an all-out civil war will ebb. Or perhaps he fears that if democracy succeeds in Iraq, however messily, the lesson will spread to other Arab nations as well. How else to explain why Zarqawi and the insurgents have made their primary targets not Americans but Iraqi men and women who dare to vote?

And how to explain those American, and particularly conservative, voices who see the administration's push for freedom as dangerous, short-sighted, naive, or involving "too much God"?