Iraq - Let Us Not Create a Terrorist State
The grave mistake of a Zapatero-style withdrawal
Giovanni
Sartori
The Bush war has been disastrous. But a Zapatero-type Europe augurs an even more colossal disaster. As European Commission President Romano Prodi has said, going into Iraq was easy, but getting out will be difficult. I'd say, "extremely difficult." Not for Mr. Zapatero, though. He's off right now, wishing a fond farewell to the fools who are staying on. Why now, indeed this very minute? The first reason is that this was an election promise. As a scholar who studies elections, I remain unmoved. I know that we have leaders who will make any promise, however ridiculous, in order to win an election. In any case, an election promise can be honored by waiting for the appropriate moment. Mr. Zapatero decided not to wait even for a month because he discovered - and here is the second reason - that the United States would never put their finest army, almost all of which is in Iraq today, under the command of anyone else (the U.N. or whoever).
This is a truly amazing discovery, but only for those who are unaware that never in the history of the world has a great power handed over its military might to someone else. Those who ask the United States to do precisely that can only be in bad faith, since they must realize it is an impossible demand. Yet, that is how Mr. Zapatero justifies his disengagement. In doing so, he has created a domino effect that involves the Italian Left. It is now forced to tag along behind the extremism of Communist Refoundation leader Fausto Bertinotti, and the puerile chorus of the "blind peaceniks" from which he draws strength. This time, we bid a fond farewell to the credibility of a serious, responsible Left.
But let's get back to Iraq. It's true that the Americans and those who help them are seen, on the ground, as "occupiers." This was not hard to predict, and was one of the many reasons that weighed against the invasion. However, those who choose the Zapatero solution will undoubtedly be seen as "running away," a truly colossal victory for the Islamic fundamentalism that is inflaming the Middle East, and mobilizing it against the West. Winning the war is not winning the peace. Mr. Bush no longer knows how to win the peace, but Mr. Zapatero is showing us how to lose it in the worst possible way.
Categorically, fleeing the field is no solution: it exacerbates the problems. But neither is leaving the Americans to sort it out (or not) for themselves any solution. Yes, the Americans deserve to be chastised. But remember the one about cutting off your nose to spite your face? What, then, is the solution? Everyone says that a "sea change" is needed. Fair enough, but in what direction? It can't be achieved by lending the American army to the United Nations, nor by making an international organization with no troops intervene in Iraq. Some have proposed involving the moderate Arab countries. They are, however, forgetting that the neighboring Arab countries, apart from Iran, are Sunnite, and therefore hardly popular with Iraq's Shiite majority.
I am not saying that the question is insoluble, but any solution will follow from an understanding of the problem. The Americans naively attacked an Iraq that was in no sense a military base for Islamic terrorism. But from the Americans' defeat, and our Zapatero-like flight, will emerge precisely the terrorist state that was not there. Desperately poor Afghanistan could only provide Osama Bin Laden with training camps: Iraq, in contrast, is oil-rich, and can offer global terrorism all the infrastructures it needs to manufacture the chemical and bacteriological weapons that could annihilate us. If this is understood, a solution can be found. But when will we take it on board? For now, it is as if, like the Byzantines, we were still bickering about the sex of angels.
by Giovanni Sartori
http://www.corriere.it