When I heard that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan complained
that the United States had messed things up in the Middle East,
specifically echoing Middle Eastern leaders who told him that the
U.S. invasion of Iraq was a “real disaster” for the region, I got
to wondering. What was the Middle East like before the U.S. messed
things up by invading Iraq? Was it like the mythical Garden of Eden
that North America was before the White Man came and messed it up?
Jogging my long-term memory, I don’t think that is quite the
case.
Unlike the delusional John Kerry, the Secretary General did, in
fact, talk to real leaders who informed him of their thoughts. In
particular, Mr. Annan highlighted the opinions of Iran’s leaders.
“They were quite clear that the U.S. presence was a problem,”
stated Mr. Annan. Well if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks we’re a
problem, we definitely should hang our heads in shame, and tuck our
tails between our legs and “redeploy.” While Mr. Annan is taking
the United States to task for upsetting the Iranians, perhaps he
can also launch an investigation into why this Holocaust hoax that
bugs Mr. Ahmadinejad keeps getting play. I wonder, has the rise of
the theocracy in Iran (and the ascendancy of Mr. Ahmadinejad in
Iran) been a “disaster” for the region? I don’t think I’ve heard an
opinion on that from Kofi Annan.
As I recall, in 1980, Saddam’s Iraq invaded Iran, starting an
8-year conflict that killed more than one million people. In 1991,
Saddam’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, starting the first Gulf War. And
since the ceasefire from the first Gulf War, Saddam’s Iraq spent
its time killing southern Shiites, shooting at coalition aircraft
enforcing the “no-fly” zones that prevented Saddam from killing
more Shiites and Kurds, and confounding and finally kicking out
U.N. weapons inspectors whose job it had been to verify that Saddam
was living by the terms of the cease-fire by not reactivating his
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.
The American led invasion of Iraq in 2003 took care of the
perennial disaster that was Saddam Hussein. But other problems, as
Kofi Annan and other critiques of American military action are fond
of pointing out, have come up. Specifically, terrorists seeking
U.S. defeat in Iraq, old Saddam loyalists, and some extreme Islamic
sectarians have been engaged in a terror campaign sometimes killing
hundreds of Iraqis a month. This is a problem — and the main
reason why U.S. forces are still in the country in large
numbers.
BUT LET’S PUT THIS PROBLEM in historical context. When Saddam was
in power, if he was killing only a few hundred people a month, he
was having an off year. (From 1988 to 1992 alone, he killed an
estimated 250,000 Kurds and Shiites.) Now it is true that during
Saddam’s time, the violence wasn’t so random or visible as it is
now; it didn’t take the form of dramatic bomb blasts, but rather
mostly took place in torture chambers and in isolated villages
without media coverage, and you could be fairly confident that you
wouldn’t become a victim unless Saddam had good reason to go after
you — such as if you didn’t agree with his policies, argued for
democratic reforms, or were a Kurd, or a Shiite. Nonetheless, just
on the basis of body counts, one can only come to the conclusion
that the mess the United States has made in Iraq is a significant
improvement over the mess that was already there.
Beyond the violence, however, the “disaster” of American policy
in Iraq has resulted in a functioning democracy in what had been
one of the most vile dictatorships in the region. I can understand
why the Ayatollahs in Iran would find this a disaster (if democracy
were to spread to their country, after all, they would be thrown
out of power faster than you could say “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”), but
why does the Secretary General of the United Nations second this
opinion?
The American-led invasion of Iraq, and the ouster of Saddam
Hussein has not been a “disaster” for the Middle East. And, despite
the histrionics of the Democrat leadership in the United States, it
has not been a disaster for America by “creating more terrorists”
or more hatred aimed at the United States.
Again, let’s think back. When the U.S. led coalition invaded
Iraq in 2003, it wasn’t the “Arab street” that exploded in rage —
it was the American and European street. Protests in San Francisco,
London, and Rome, dwarfed anything in Cairo, Beirut, or Damascus.
Quite a few Arabs were not all that fond of Saddam Hussein, and
they certainly took away from the demonstration of American force
and resolve a sense of respect for American power — at least
initially, before all the carping by people like Dick Durbin, John
Kerry, and Harry Reid who declared the mission “illegal” and a
great “mistake” when they discovered that it wouldn’t be concluded
before the next presidential election.
The antiwar crowd contends that by invading Iraq we so enraged
Muslims that we “created” thousands of new terrorists. But why
would Muslims be so outraged by our invasion of Iraq? It wouldn’t
be because they liked Saddam Hussein, or even that they regarded
our actions as “illegal” — Egypt, Syria, and Jordan never thought
to get U.N. approval to attack Israel. Those Muslims who were
really, really ticked off were those who were upset that a
non-Muslim nation had invaded a Muslim nation. To them, the issue
wasn’t right and wrong or good and bad, but Muslim versus
non-Muslim. And guess what? In these people’s mind, “non-Muslims”
are the enemy — even when they aren’t toppling Muslim-murdering
Muslim dictators. We were the enemy, remember, on September 11,
2001 (and before).
MARK STEYN HAS QUOTED a few times in his wonderful essays something
that is worth reading again, for it does not seem to have sunk in
to the minds of many. He quotes a spokesman for the Islamic Army of
Aden commenting on the 2002 bombing of a French oil tanker: “We
would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because
they are all infidels.” To quote the venerable Mr. Steyn, “You can
be a hippie-dippy
hey-man-I-love-everybody-whatever-your-bag-is-cool backpacking
Dutch stoner, and they’ll blow you up with as much enthusiasm as if
you were Dick Cheney.”
If our invasion of Iraq did not “create” hordes of new
anti-American terrorists, what would doing nothing — other than
getting dozens of more meaningless U.N. resolutions — have done?
How many anti-American terrorists would we have “created” by our
show of weakness and impotence in the face of a defiant Saddam
Hussein?
Lastly, if those who voice the notion that our Iraq policy has
made us less safe by “creating” more terrorists really believe
this, then why don’t they insist that we abandon Israel as an ally?
Of course, some do — but not those in the halls of Congress.
Clearly, our support of the “Zionist Entity” rankles much deeper on
the Arab street than does our Iraq policy. And if we really want to
be safe why don’t we just adopt Sharia? (Already, after all, many
in our brave media refuse to run cartoons that depict Mohammed.)
The argument that we cannot engage our enemies militarily without
“creating” more terrorists is a hollow one, and I suspect that most
of those who make it only do so in an attempt to score political
points.
Kofi Annan, in taking up the cause of America’s critics is not
trying to score political points. The Secretary General, I am
afraid, is just a creature of the organization he heads. As such,
laying blame on the United States, whenever and wherever he can is
just part of his being.
