Everyone agrees that the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq were a success, which for most Americans–deep into a war they hadn’t quite bargained for–means the problem of Iraq has been solved.
Among moderates like me in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, what you hear over and over are expressions such as, “Now we can move as fast as possible to get out with dignity,” or, “Thank God we don’t have the military capacity for the administration to invade Iran or Syria!”
But that’s only moderate talk. The administration’s neocon wing sees the elections not as a lucky fluke after two years of American bungling and wastefulness in Iraq, but as a big green light.
The events of Jan. 30 should not have surprised everyone so much (although the American Embassy in Baghdad was itself immensely surprised). On the Iraqi side, the Shiite leadership had commanded its 60 percent majority of the population to vote, and the Kurds of the north would naturally be expected to vote.
On the American side, the U.S. military cleverly cleared the streets of vehicles for three full days, cutting off the insurgents’ favorite tactic of car-bombing and giving the new Iraqi security forces a decent chance. It worked, and they should be congratulated for it.
So, too, should be congratulated the various Iraqi leaders who put their lives on the line to run for office in this unique election. The possibility that they can run and rule that thwarted country would be thrilling were it not still so dangerous, with civil war or ongoing disintegration continuing challenges.
One would think that this reality on the ground would give the neocons and other “American imperialists” (their proud term) some cause for pause, or at least for reflection–but it has not. Nor have they been moved by the idea that we do not have enough troops to continue on their imperialist path.
We must remember that we are dealing with American radicals. By re-electing President Bush, Americans gave them the hearty go-ahead and now, not surprisingly, they’re going ahead. Suddenly, after the elections, hints were everywhere that Iran could be the next step. On her trip to Europe, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated at a Paris breakfast that Iran is a “totalitarian regime” (which it is certainly not). Seymour Hersh and other writers revealed that American planes are overflying Iran, and Special Forces are probably already inside.
As David Kay, the first leader of the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, has been saying repeatedly on television and in his columns: “There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war … The U.S. is warning of a nuclear war because of Iran’s nuclear program … Iran says it is now cooperating fully with international inspections … Vice President [Dick] Cheney is giving interviews and speeches that paint a stark picture of a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran and declaring that this is something the Bush administration will not tolerate.”
In fact, the neocons’ first target was always Iran because it was considered Israel’s real enemy. But Iraq was “doable” as a starter in the American context. All thought of negotiation or diplomacy, as has been carried through by the Europeans and the Iranian government, is perceived in Washington as defeatism.
More Top Picks Sennheiser Ie 100 Pro
But if America continues to threaten Iran, power will tilt again toward the mullahs. Our history of interventionism there will make that inevitable. As Pat Buchanan said on “Meet the Press” last week in a rare bit of wisdom voiced around here these days, “Interventionism is not the solution for terrorism. Interventionism is the cause of terrorism.”
On top of all of this comes the horrific assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon. How does that figure into this parade of events? Was this some kind of result of events in Iraq? Are we going to move into this new situation? Is Syria “next”?
This administration, far from using the Iraqi elections to productively get out of Iraq and leave something relatively decent behind, is using them to get further involved in the Middle East for its own grandiose intentions. And the Middle East is responding as it always does: When one solution appears to be moving forward, other groups open up a new arena for the problem.
In short, America has fallen into that ancient trap and is becoming a more permanent player in the Machiavellian conspiracies and conflicts of the Middle East. If history is any guide, no one ever gets out of those unscarred.
———-
Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington. E-mail: [email protected]