I have no idea how the average Iraqi feels about his situation, but Kevin Drum, David Adesnik, and Bird Dog at Tacitus all feel pretty darn good about our progress. Here's a sentence I thought I'd never write: Drum, Adesnik, and Bird Dog are in agreement on Iraq.
All three posted before today's round of bombings and attacks, so it's fair to say that they've been somewhat upstaged by events. But their claim still holds up. Iraq is getting better. Today aside, the insurgency does seem to be weakening. And, if Americans are no more popular there today than they were three months ago, at least the Iraqis know that we'll be gone pretty soon.
But it's not over yet. Swaths of Iraq are ruled by bandits, militias, or increasingly-radicalized Shi'ite clerics (sometimes all three). The facts that led some to conclude that Iraq was on the verge of a civil war mere weeks ago have not disappeared. Indeed, you can capture enough Iraqi playing cards to open a riverboat casino, but you can't erase centuries of long-simmering ethnic and religious tensions. That is what threatens to tear the country apart.
Still, there's a natural tendency -- and not just among the Bush administration -- to want it to be over. To want to be done. C'mon, dude, the Hobbit-man just won an Oscar and that guy with the 'brows is 'bout to sweep Super Tuesday. And, though Drum, Adesnik and Bird Dog clearly don't think it, there is a growing contingent of people who just wanna get on with their lives -- which means forgetting Iraq.
It's the third quarter of a race that's always the most difficult. You're exhausted by what you've already accomplished, and yet the end seems so very far away. You lose focus and your pace slackens. It's the point in which you decide whether you want to win. And the funny thing is: There is no drama about it. No burst of power or whoop of victory. Determination is boring.
The race is not yet won in Iraq. We have not yet rebuilt the country, as we said we said we would. The finish line is a long way off. (Today's explosions prove it.) Yes, the mind wants to move on to more interesting things. Like Hobbits and eyebrows and gay marriage and passion plays. But not yet. Not yet.
So: Is either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry looking for a leadership moment? Because this would be one. (Listen carefully, now, to what they are careful not to say.)
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds appears to agree. He writes today (3/3) that "[w]ar is stressful, and the temptation to pretend it's over and put it out of your mind is strong. I suspect that even some people in the White House -- where the exhaustion level has got to be high after nearly thirty months of war -- feel that way, at least subconsciously."
von
But not yet. Not yet.
Excellent use of a Gladiator quote?
Posted by: crionna | March 02, 2004 at 11:54 AM
Excellent use of a Gladiator quote?
If I'm channelling Crowe, it's purely unintentional.
Posted by: von | March 02, 2004 at 12:16 PM
Today's explosions prove it.
You can prove something with an explosion? I'm thinking that geometry was intentionally made a lot less fun that it could have otherwise been...
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 02, 2004 at 12:29 PM
No, hold the line but a nice post Von.
But I would be more concerned about the pact just signed by Iran and Syria, as compared to the explosions.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | March 02, 2004 at 12:39 PM
I do not think that is even a question any longer. John Kerry will not be able to get a “leadership moment” on Iraq after he voted against the reconstruction funding, insulted our coalition allies, and tried to flip-flop on his vote for the liberation of Iraq.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | March 02, 2004 at 12:55 PM
John Kerry will not be able to get a “leadership moment” on Iraq
We'll let the voters decide that, shall we?
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2004 at 12:55 PM
Why am I always surrounded by engineers? (Oh, yeah, I'm a patent lawyer.)
Fair point, Thorley. I like to think that everyone can be redeemed, but there may be no hope for Kerry on Iraq.
Posted by: von | March 02, 2004 at 02:01 PM
BTW, Slarti, forgot the ;).
Posted by: von | March 02, 2004 at 02:02 PM
So with that, and the recent story on the Washington Post on Kerry being worse than Bush when it comes to the deficit(1), you’re left with the FMA as your only remaining excuse not to join the Army of Light(2) and vote for Bush.
TW
(1) That is of course not even including the fact that Kerry and Edwards both affirmed their opposition to any form of Social Security reform last week after Greenspan’s testimony in favor of entitlement reform and deficit reduction but opposed to tax increases in order to increase long-term economic growth. Something of concern for those who take the long view.
(2) Gratuitous B-5 reference given it is the most right-leaning sci-fi scow with three GOPers in the cast as opposed to the usual one or two (BtVS, Battlestar Galactica, etc.).
Posted by: Thorley Winston | March 02, 2004 at 02:24 PM
von, I find myself in agreement with you. I expect Iraq to get rebuilt by the U.S. We broke it, we fix it. I expect democracy to be established there in one shape or another. I expect that Iraq will not become a theocracy. I expect that it not be easy and it will take hard work and lots of money.
Posted by: Bird Dog | March 02, 2004 at 04:27 PM
That said, we've already done a great deal of fixing. To what extent should we fix Iraq? Undoing the damage of war, almost certainly. Undoing all of the damage of Saddam? Less certain. My personal (and lightly considered, at this point) view is that we ought to do less in the way of mass rebuilding and more in the way of putting Iraq on its own two feet politically and socially.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 02, 2004 at 05:05 PM
So with that, and the recent story on the Washington Post on Kerry being worse than Bush when it comes to the deficit(1),
Well, that's not exactly what the WaPo story says. It says that, at present, Kerry's proposes spending $160 billion more than his proposed tax increases. There's no indication that Bush's increases over spending are more or less than that. Nor is Kerry's plan fully fleshed out.
Posted by: von | March 02, 2004 at 05:25 PM
My personal (and lightly considered, at this point) view is that we ought to do less in the way of mass rebuilding and more in the way of putting Iraq on its own two feet politically and socially.
I almost lean the opposite. Prosperous people tend to be peaceful people. If we want to reform Iraq, we will need to reform its infrastructure -- the engine of prosperity. Unfortunately, that means that we'll need to repair more than just war damage.
Posted by: von | March 02, 2004 at 05:29 PM
von,
Prosperity will not come to Iraq feom pumping US dollars through it forever. We did not actually "break" that much during the recent conflict. We "broke" much more in '91. Establishing transparency in the flow of oil revenue through to necessary infrastructure projects will probably be more important than the projects themselves. Iraq is not the Sudan. The sooner it is independent of US aid the better in terms of long term benefits to its citizens. Iraq has water and enough arable land to feed its entire population, it has enough oil revenue to finance any infrastructure development it cares to attempt. What it lacks is political stability and that is where the US needs to focus its efforts.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 02, 2004 at 07:52 PM
von:
Two sides of the same coin. If we just pay them cash, we've done practically nothing for them. On the other hand, if we set them back on their feet again with stable government, prosperity is much more likely to come. With bad government comes poverty. Not an argument, here, just an opinion.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 02, 2004 at 11:51 PM