Tuesday, October 11

Why We Fight

This is a excerpt from an Op-Ed piece by Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President. It is in a British paper, the London Times:

EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny.

Think about that for a minute. I have long maintained that I will make my peace with Islam when they lay the cornerstone to the first Synagogue next to the First Baptist Church of Mecca. That is not simply rhetoric. When Islam is tolerant and peaceful, I will feel no need to be intolerant of it. When the Muslim President of Iraq describes the murder of a Christian as vile that is a step in that direction. He continues a bit farther down the page to lay the smackdown on the "Peace" Protestors who whine about WMD:

Those who preferred the stability of the mass grave to liberation, and who raised their voices to save Saddam, but not his victims, have spuriously claimed that the war was fought to discover stocks of weapons of mass destruction. But Rolf Ekeus, the first head of the UN weapons inspectors, has argued that stocks were not the issue. Saddam could always re-create his stocks and until the end he could restart mustard gas production within months and nerve gas production within a couple of years. Moreover, Saddam used chemical weapons casually, gassing 5,000 Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988 and then using chemical bombs against Shia Arab civilians in 1991 — after the Gulf War ceasefire.

There were no stockpiles of nerve gas because he had used what he had. He couldn't rebuild his WMD until sanctions were lifted.

Make no mistake, those who march in the streets for "Peace" want those sanctions lifted. He goes further:

While Iraq has often proved unpredictable, substantial progress has been made in rehabilitating a country that from the moment of its British colonial creation in 1921 was a failed state. Unfortunately, many in Britain are unaware of the advance of Iraqi democracy and of the desire of its first democratically elected government to have British and other foreign troops remain. Instead, some parts of the media have elevated the hooligans of Basra into tribunes of the people.

The stone throwers of Basra do not speak for the 8.5 million Iraqis who defied terrorist violence to vote on January 30, 2005. Nor do they speak for the vast majority of Iraqis whose democratically chosen representatives negotiated a final constitution in record time. That constitution reflects the realities of today’s Iraq and is, like the March 2004 interim charter, a remarkably progressive document. No constitution elsewhere in the Islamic Middle East is as democratic.

Similarly, those who attack mosques and churches, who murder schoolchildren and labourers, who behead foreigners and who kidnap humanitarian workers are not engaged in “resistance”. Those sabotaging Iraq’s first democracy bear no resemblance to the resistors of foreign occupation in wartime Europe. Rather, they are, in their ideology and record, contemporary representatives of the fascism that wreaked such havoc 60 years ago in Europe. They are supremacists and racists, as worthy of our contempt as those who practised apartheid in South Africa.

Nor do these terrorists have a popular base. They are drawn from a minority within Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority. They have no political wing and no manifesto beyond punishing their fellow Iraqis for welcoming British and American liberation and for daring to vote. Many of the suicide terrorists are not even Iraqis, but foreigners driven by religious fanaticism and al-Qaeda‘s death cult, the poisonous gift of the Arab world that supported Saddam and now vilifies our nascent democracy.

There are occasional immoral voices that call for a new dictatorship to be installed in Iraq as, they claim, a less laborious means of imposing order. Order is certainly important, but so is freedom. A restored dictatorship in Iraq will be neither friendly nor benign. Animated by vengeance and fed by oil, a new dictatorship will again seek to make Iraq into the Arab Prussia and the overlord of the Gulf, goals that Iraqi regimes before Saddam aspired to.

To abandon us now would be murderously irresponsible and cynical

This is the Gettysburg Address of this War. This is written by a man of rare character, Iraq's George Washington. Think about it. He's right, there are immoral voices calling for a new Iraqi dictatorship. Some of those voices are in the media, but some are on the floor of the Senate and the House. They may say it prettier, but what they mean is "Time to cut and run. The sand n****** need a strong hand to keep them in line."

All this man needs to do is stretch out his hand to the Kennedy-Durban wing, say "I'm your man", and call for the US and British troops to leave, and he would be the next Dictator of Iraq. What a temptation that has to be. I am certain I am not up to it. This is a man of rare character.

Building democracy in Iraq is not a fanciful quest, but a recognition that all other approaches have failed. True stability comes from consent, not from the illusory “stability” of dictatorships. It is therefore in our mutual interest that we pursue the cause of democracy. We may falter, we may tire, but if we persevere, we shall not be defeated.

Remember this the next time you hear the bloated bloviator from Massachusetts barking moonbat that the US Military is part of the problem, not part of the solution in Iraq.

We shall not be defeated. Indeed, sir, we shall not.
eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com