Two perspectives on Iraq

Yesterday I received this email from one of my friends in Estonia:

Tom - I did not get it! Two official reports (incl just released from CIA) already filled from the states officials, (from the same organizations that previously said vice versa) - there were NO nuclear weapons, chemicals etc in Iraq... There were no connections with Laden either...

As I recall "you" (as republican) almost pushed Bill away just for spot on a blue dress... BTW, how many people was killed due to this spot?

Here - whole country is ruined, zounds of civilians are killed, about 2K American solders are in graves (not counting our two Estonian troops)... For what? just saying - we are sorry, but we lied - there were no weapons there...

Oh sorry, yes - now it is a democratic country... Just curious - when new victims count - due to new democracy - will over count the previous one - the victims from Saddam Regime, what will you say?

The first thing that struck me, as I read this, is just how similar the perspective (and arguments) expressed are to those of the Michael Moore liberals here in the U.S. I'll take this as an instance proof that our world is a very small place, indeed!

My friend and I could hardly be further apart on these issues; as I have said to him on several occasions, it's as if we get our "facts" from two entirely different sources that somehow look at the same events and arrive at opposite conclusions. He sees a lie on WMD; I see an honest (if stupid!) mistake made by virtually every intelligence agency on the planet, including countries such as Russia, Germany, France, Iran, and China that were on the opposite side of the Iraq issue from the U.S. He sees the war in Iraq as having been justified solely on the basis of Saddam's WMD; I see the WMD issue as just one of several justifications each of which were enough in and of themselves. He sees the casualties of the war as approaching or exceeding the human cost of Saddam; I see Saddam's reign as orders of magnitude more evil and more costly of human life than the Iraq war. He sees little value in the fact that Iraq is now a democracy and not a dictatorship; I rejoice in that change, rejoice in the new freedom of the Iraqi people, and I see America's part in enabling that new freedom as evidence of America's greatness. He finds a way to compare Bush's leadership on Iraq with Clinton's weasely behavior; I can't hold them in my brain at the same time.

Just as I cannot imagine that the Michael Moore liberals and I will find common ground in our politics, I suspect my Estonian friend and I will forever disagree on these issues. He and I have not discussed the continuing impacts of the "Bush doctrine" in the Middle East, but I suspect his perceptions will be in line with those of the left-wing liberals here in the U.S.: that the wonderful events in Lebanon are (a) not really so wonderful, and (b) not related in any way to the Iraq war and other pressures being placed by the Bush administration on Syria. Also that the recently announced Egyptian elections, or the recently held Saudi elections would have happened anyway, maybe even sooner if Bush wasn't President. And in any event they're not actually helping anything there; the old dictatorships were actually pretty good. Fortunately (from my perspective, at least) there is an interesting segment of the liberal community in the U.S. that is waking up and saying "Whoa, here, wait a second...these policies of G.W. Bush might actually be working!" And not only in the U.S., as witness the recent round of laudatory editorials in the European press.

Now contrast this perspective with that of an actual Iraqi — President Jalal Talabani. You'll recall that after the January elections the elected representatives worked for weeks to put together a coalition. In the process, they selected Mr. Talabani (a Kurd) as President. The group of Iraqis who were seen by the world as being supported by the U.S. (Mr. Alawi's crowd) were distinct losers in the election. Mr. Chalabi — actively and overtly opposed by the U.S. State Department and the CIA — captured a very respectable portion of the vote. And the openly declared enemy of the U.S., the coalition, and the entire idea of a secular Iraq (al Sadr) was resoundingly defeated. From any rational perspective one must consider Mr. Talabani as genuinely representative of Iraq, and in no way an American toady. Here's what he had to say yesterday in an open letter to Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair:

Dear Mr Blair:

I CANNOT begin to explain my emotions, after over five decades of personally fighting for and promoting democracy and human rights, to witness a nation take its first steps towards a dream.

Now the democratically-elected parliament has honoured me, a Kurd, with the post of Presidency. This is a symbol of the promise, integration and unity of the new Iraq.

Let nobody mislead you, the Iraq that we inherited in April 2003, following the British and American-led liberation, was a tragedy.

The Ba’athist criminals had starved the country of an infrastructure and the people of their freedom.

Apart from the Kurdish safe haven, Iraq was a playground for thugs and a prison for the innocent.

Saddam’s war against the Iraqi people was on-going; we have evidence which demonstrates that the regime was executing its challengers until the last days of its rule.

It was that war, lasting almost forty years, which was the true war of Iraq.

We have all heard of the genocide, gassing, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and the environmental vandalism of the territory of Iraq’s historic Marsh Arabs.

We understand that there is no turning the clock back. Instead, we press ahead with democratisation and justice.

Unfortunately, Saddam’s former henchmen and religious extremist associates have chosen to fight their losing battle, which in turn has made post-liberation Iraq less stable than we would have wished.

Yet true Iraqis have largely shunned the terrorists, and their cowardly acts are increasingly becoming limited and confined to certain areas.

Millions of brave Iraqis defy terrorism and reject dictatorship every day, without fuss, and certainly without attention from the television cameras.

We undertake to rebuild a shattered country scarred by decades of tyranny. With unwavering resolve we support plurality, egalitarianism, and the political process.

Building a democratic federal Iraq is a difficult, and slow, but rewarding process.

Those who doubt the swiftness of transition must keep in mind that a state such as Iraq is a cultural, ethnic and linguistic mosaic that was only ever held together by brute force, thus, political speed can kill.

Nevertheless, January saw Iraq’s first free and open general election, leading to the first democratically-elected government of our desolate history.

Yet our struggle for a better, emancipated Iraq is only due to the consistent and unwavering support of Prime Minister Blair, the British people, and the coalition of the willing.

For many Iraqis, the positive role that Britain has played is a welcome change.

From our colonial master, Britain has become our democratic guardian.

In 1991 I saw at first hand how Prime Minister John Major, fresh from the liberation of Kuwait, bravely led the way in implementing a safe-haven for Iraqi Kurdistan.

For 12 years, heroic RAF pilots, with the support of neighbouring Turkey, flew in Kurdish skies to prevent Saddam from completing the anti-Kurdish genocide that he had started in 1987.

We were finally able to start rebuilding the 4,500 villages destroyed by Saddam’s regime and to begin the process of nurturing civil society and democracy.

And now thanks to Prime Minister Blair’s courageous and principled decisions, we can recreate this throughout Iraq.

Of course the liberation of Iraq has been controversial, as all wars should be.

Sadly in this case, war was not the “best” option, it was the only option.

Under Saddam, war was never controversial, never discussed, simply ordered and executed by him and his thugs.

Iraqis sometimes wonder in amazement what the debate abroad is about. Why do people continue to ask why no WMD was found?

The truth is that Saddam had, in the past, used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, and we believed he would do so again.

Of course Saddam himself was, in the view of those who opposed him, Iraq’s most dangerous WMD.

Instead of continually focusing on the negative, the British, who will soon commemorate the 60th anniversary of VE day, should know that in the eyes of the majority of Iraqis, it was you who brought us our own victory day.

Britain should be proud that the liberation of Iraq has in our eyes been one of your finest hours.

History will judge Prime Minister Blair as a champion against tyranny. Of that I have no doubt.

We are not reticent about expressing our great thanks to the British people and paying homage to tragic British losses.

Every Iraqi family, in fact, has lost a loved one because of Saddam. Every Iraqi understands the pain of conflict, the grief that accompanies war.

We honour those who sacrificed their lives for our liberation. We are determined out of respect to create a tolerant and democratic Iraq, an Iraq for all the Iraqi people.

It will take time and much patience, but I can assure you it will be worth while, not only for Iraq, but for the whole of the Middle East.

yours sincerely
President Talabani

Here's a genuine Iraqi perspective on the same issues that my Estonian friend and I debate. But his perspective is vastly different than either of ours: he speaks as one who has actually lived through all these events, not just witnessed them from afar. He, his family and friends, and his people all suffered tremendously under Saddam, paid a terrible price to help wrest their freedom from him, and now are the beneficiaries of Saddam's absence. So of course his perspective is different.

But from my perspective, it is this kind of story, repeated (quite literally) millions of times that is the real justification for the war in Iraq. And that is the real difference between my perspective and that of my Estonian friend...for he clearly does not see that justification at all.