Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Remarks by the President at National World War II Memorial Dedication
National World War II MemorialWashington, D.C.
3:09 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. I'm honored to join with President Clinton, President Bush, Senator Dole and other distinguished guests on this day of remembrance and celebration. And, General Kelley, here in the company of the generation that won the war, I proudly accept the World War II Memorial on behalf of the people of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Raising up this Memorial took skill and vision and patience. Now the work is done, and it is a fitting tribute, open and expansive, like America; grand and enduring, like the achievements we honor. The years of World War II were a hard, heroic and gallant time in the life of our country. When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans showed the finest qualities of our nation and of humanity. On this day, in their honor, we will raise the American flag over a monument that will stand as long as America itself.
In the history books, the Second World War can appear as a series of crises and conflicts, following an inevitable course -- from Pearl Harbor to the Coast of Normandy to the deck of the Missouri. Yet, on the day the war began, and on many hard days that followed, the outcome was far from certain.
There was a time, in the years before the war, when many earnest and educated people believed that democracy was finished. Men who considered themselves learned and civilized came to believe that free institutions must give way to the severe doctrines and stern discipline of a regimented society. Ideas first whispered in the secret councils of a remote empire, or shouted in the beer halls of Munich, became mass movements. And those movements became armies. And those armies moved mercilessly forward -- until the world saw Hitler strutting in Paris, and U.S. Navy ships burning in their own port. Across the world, from a hiding place in Holland to prison camps of Luzon, the captives awaited their liberators.
Those liberators would come, but the enterprise would require the commitment and effort of our entire nation. As World War II began, after a decade of economic depression, the United States was not a rich country. Far from being a great power, we had only the 17th largest army in the world. To fight and win on two fronts, Americans had to work and save and ration and sacrifice as never before. War production plants operated shifts around the clock. Across the country, families planted victory gardens -- 20 million of them, producing 40 percent of the nation's vegetables in backyards and on rooftops. Two out of every three citizens put money into war bonds. As Colonel Oveta Culp Hobby said, "This was a people's war, and everyone was in it."
As life changed in America, so did the way that Americans saw our own country and its place in the world. The bombs at Pearl Harbor destroyed the very idea that America could live in isolation from the plots of aggressive powers. The scenes of the concentration camps, the heaps of bodies and ghostly survivors, confirmed forever America's calling to oppose the ideologies of death.
As we defended our ideals, we began to see that America is stronger when those ideals are fully implemented. America gained strength because women labored for victory and factory jobs, cared for the wounded and wore the uniform, themselves. America gained strength because African Americans and Japanese Americans and others fought for their country, which wasn't always fair to them. In time, these contributions became expectations of equality, and the advances for justice in post-war America made us a better country.
With all our flaws, Americans at that time had never been more united. And together we began and completed the largest single task in our history. At the height of conflict, America would have ships on every ocean, and armies on five continents. And on the most crucial of days, would move the equivalent of a major city across the English Channel.
And all these vast movements of men and armor were directed by one man who could not walk on his own strength. President Roosevelt brought his own advantages to the job. His resolve was stronger than the will of any dictator. His belief in democracy was absolute. He possessed a daring that kept the enemy guessing. He spoke to Americans with an optimism that lightened their task. And one of the saddest days of the war came just as it was ending, when the casualty notice in the morning paper began with the name, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Commander-in-Chief.
Across the years, we still know his voice. And from his words, we know that he understood the character of the American people. Dictators and their generals had dismissed Americans as no match for a master race. FDR answered them. In one of his radio addresses, he said, "We have been described as a nation of weaklings, playboys. Let them tell that to General McArthur and his men. Let them tell that to the boys in the flying fortresses. Let them tell that to the Marines."
In all, more than 16 million Americans would put on the uniform of the soldier, the sailor, the airman, the Marine, the Coast Guardsman or the Merchant Mariner. They came from city streets and prairie towns, from public high schools and West Point. They were a modest bunch, and still are. The ranks were filled with men like Army Private Joe Sakato. In heavy fighting in France, he saw a good friend killed, and charged up a hill determined to shoot the ones who did it. Private Sakato ran straight into enemy fire, killing 12, wounding two, capturing four, and inspiring his whole unit to take the hill and destroy the enemy. (Applause.) Looking back on it 55 years later, Joe Sakato said, "I'm not a hero. Nowadays they call what I did 'road rage.'" (Laughter.)
This man's conduct that day gained him the Medal of Honor, one of 464 awarded for actions in World War II. Americans in uniform served bravely, fought fiercely and kept their honor -- even under the worst of conditions. Yet they were not warriors by nature. All they wanted was to finish the job and make it home. One soldier in the 58th Armor Field Artillery was known to have the best-kept rifle in the unit. He told his buddies he had plans for that weapon after the war. He said, "I want to take it home, cover it in salt, hang it on a wall in my living room so I can watch it rust."
These were the modest sons of a peaceful country, and millions of us are very proud to call them Dad. They gave the best years of their lives to the greatest mission their country ever accepted. (Applause.) They faced the most extreme danger, which took some and spared others, for reasons only known to God. And wherever they advanced or touched ground, they are remembered for their goodness and their decency. A Polish man recalls being marched through the German countryside in the last weeks of the war, when American forces suddenly appeared. He said, "Our two guards ran away. And this soldier with little blonde hair jumps off his tank. 'You're free,' he shouts at us. We started hugging each other, crying and screaming, 'God sent angels down to pick us up out of this hell place.'"
Well, our boys weren't exactly angels. They were flesh and blood, with all the limits and fears of flesh and blood. That only makes the achievement more remarkable -- the courage they showed, in a conflict that claimed more than 400,000 American lives, leaving so many orphans and widows and Gold Star Mothers.
The soldiers' story was best told by the great Ernie Pyle, who shared their lives and died among them. In his book, "Here Is Your War," he described World War II as many veterans now remember it. It is a picture, he wrote, "of tired and dirty soldiers, who are alive and don't want to die; of long, darkened convoys in the middle of the night; of shocked, silent men wandering back down the hill from battle; of Jeeps and petrol dumps and smelly bedding roles and C-rations; and blown bridges and dead mules and hospital tents and shirt collars greasy-black from months of wearing; and of laughter, too, and anger, and wine, and lovely flowers and constant cussing. All these, it is composed of; and of graves and graves and graves."
On this Memorial Day weekend, the graves will be visited, and decorated with flowers and flags. Men whose step has slowed are thinking of boys they knew when they were boys together. And women who watched the train leave, and the years pass, can still see the handsome face of their young sweetheart. America will not forget them, either.
At this place, at this Memorial, we acknowledge a debt of long-standing to an entire generation of Americans: those who died; those who fought and worked and grieved and went on. They saved our country, and thereby saved the liberty of mankind. And now I ask every man and woman who saw and lived World War II -- every member of that generation -- to please rise as you are able, and receive the thanks of our great nation.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
National World War II MemorialWashington, D.C.
3:09 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. I'm honored to join with President Clinton, President Bush, Senator Dole and other distinguished guests on this day of remembrance and celebration. And, General Kelley, here in the company of the generation that won the war, I proudly accept the World War II Memorial on behalf of the people of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Raising up this Memorial took skill and vision and patience. Now the work is done, and it is a fitting tribute, open and expansive, like America; grand and enduring, like the achievements we honor. The years of World War II were a hard, heroic and gallant time in the life of our country. When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans showed the finest qualities of our nation and of humanity. On this day, in their honor, we will raise the American flag over a monument that will stand as long as America itself.
In the history books, the Second World War can appear as a series of crises and conflicts, following an inevitable course -- from Pearl Harbor to the Coast of Normandy to the deck of the Missouri. Yet, on the day the war began, and on many hard days that followed, the outcome was far from certain.
There was a time, in the years before the war, when many earnest and educated people believed that democracy was finished. Men who considered themselves learned and civilized came to believe that free institutions must give way to the severe doctrines and stern discipline of a regimented society. Ideas first whispered in the secret councils of a remote empire, or shouted in the beer halls of Munich, became mass movements. And those movements became armies. And those armies moved mercilessly forward -- until the world saw Hitler strutting in Paris, and U.S. Navy ships burning in their own port. Across the world, from a hiding place in Holland to prison camps of Luzon, the captives awaited their liberators.
Those liberators would come, but the enterprise would require the commitment and effort of our entire nation. As World War II began, after a decade of economic depression, the United States was not a rich country. Far from being a great power, we had only the 17th largest army in the world. To fight and win on two fronts, Americans had to work and save and ration and sacrifice as never before. War production plants operated shifts around the clock. Across the country, families planted victory gardens -- 20 million of them, producing 40 percent of the nation's vegetables in backyards and on rooftops. Two out of every three citizens put money into war bonds. As Colonel Oveta Culp Hobby said, "This was a people's war, and everyone was in it."
As life changed in America, so did the way that Americans saw our own country and its place in the world. The bombs at Pearl Harbor destroyed the very idea that America could live in isolation from the plots of aggressive powers. The scenes of the concentration camps, the heaps of bodies and ghostly survivors, confirmed forever America's calling to oppose the ideologies of death.
As we defended our ideals, we began to see that America is stronger when those ideals are fully implemented. America gained strength because women labored for victory and factory jobs, cared for the wounded and wore the uniform, themselves. America gained strength because African Americans and Japanese Americans and others fought for their country, which wasn't always fair to them. In time, these contributions became expectations of equality, and the advances for justice in post-war America made us a better country.
With all our flaws, Americans at that time had never been more united. And together we began and completed the largest single task in our history. At the height of conflict, America would have ships on every ocean, and armies on five continents. And on the most crucial of days, would move the equivalent of a major city across the English Channel.
And all these vast movements of men and armor were directed by one man who could not walk on his own strength. President Roosevelt brought his own advantages to the job. His resolve was stronger than the will of any dictator. His belief in democracy was absolute. He possessed a daring that kept the enemy guessing. He spoke to Americans with an optimism that lightened their task. And one of the saddest days of the war came just as it was ending, when the casualty notice in the morning paper began with the name, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Commander-in-Chief.
Across the years, we still know his voice. And from his words, we know that he understood the character of the American people. Dictators and their generals had dismissed Americans as no match for a master race. FDR answered them. In one of his radio addresses, he said, "We have been described as a nation of weaklings, playboys. Let them tell that to General McArthur and his men. Let them tell that to the boys in the flying fortresses. Let them tell that to the Marines."
In all, more than 16 million Americans would put on the uniform of the soldier, the sailor, the airman, the Marine, the Coast Guardsman or the Merchant Mariner. They came from city streets and prairie towns, from public high schools and West Point. They were a modest bunch, and still are. The ranks were filled with men like Army Private Joe Sakato. In heavy fighting in France, he saw a good friend killed, and charged up a hill determined to shoot the ones who did it. Private Sakato ran straight into enemy fire, killing 12, wounding two, capturing four, and inspiring his whole unit to take the hill and destroy the enemy. (Applause.) Looking back on it 55 years later, Joe Sakato said, "I'm not a hero. Nowadays they call what I did 'road rage.'" (Laughter.)
This man's conduct that day gained him the Medal of Honor, one of 464 awarded for actions in World War II. Americans in uniform served bravely, fought fiercely and kept their honor -- even under the worst of conditions. Yet they were not warriors by nature. All they wanted was to finish the job and make it home. One soldier in the 58th Armor Field Artillery was known to have the best-kept rifle in the unit. He told his buddies he had plans for that weapon after the war. He said, "I want to take it home, cover it in salt, hang it on a wall in my living room so I can watch it rust."
These were the modest sons of a peaceful country, and millions of us are very proud to call them Dad. They gave the best years of their lives to the greatest mission their country ever accepted. (Applause.) They faced the most extreme danger, which took some and spared others, for reasons only known to God. And wherever they advanced or touched ground, they are remembered for their goodness and their decency. A Polish man recalls being marched through the German countryside in the last weeks of the war, when American forces suddenly appeared. He said, "Our two guards ran away. And this soldier with little blonde hair jumps off his tank. 'You're free,' he shouts at us. We started hugging each other, crying and screaming, 'God sent angels down to pick us up out of this hell place.'"
Well, our boys weren't exactly angels. They were flesh and blood, with all the limits and fears of flesh and blood. That only makes the achievement more remarkable -- the courage they showed, in a conflict that claimed more than 400,000 American lives, leaving so many orphans and widows and Gold Star Mothers.
The soldiers' story was best told by the great Ernie Pyle, who shared their lives and died among them. In his book, "Here Is Your War," he described World War II as many veterans now remember it. It is a picture, he wrote, "of tired and dirty soldiers, who are alive and don't want to die; of long, darkened convoys in the middle of the night; of shocked, silent men wandering back down the hill from battle; of Jeeps and petrol dumps and smelly bedding roles and C-rations; and blown bridges and dead mules and hospital tents and shirt collars greasy-black from months of wearing; and of laughter, too, and anger, and wine, and lovely flowers and constant cussing. All these, it is composed of; and of graves and graves and graves."
On this Memorial Day weekend, the graves will be visited, and decorated with flowers and flags. Men whose step has slowed are thinking of boys they knew when they were boys together. And women who watched the train leave, and the years pass, can still see the handsome face of their young sweetheart. America will not forget them, either.
At this place, at this Memorial, we acknowledge a debt of long-standing to an entire generation of Americans: those who died; those who fought and worked and grieved and went on. They saved our country, and thereby saved the liberty of mankind. And now I ask every man and woman who saw and lived World War II -- every member of that generation -- to please rise as you are able, and receive the thanks of our great nation.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Quattrocchi’s Killers
We are dealing with a truly international terror network.
You will, I hope, recall the heroic death of Fabrizio Quattrocchi on April 14 at the hands of jihadists in Iraq. At the time, the Italian foreign minister revealed that Quattrocchi, clawing at the hood they had placed over his head, cried out, "I will show you how an Italian dies!" Now, thanks to a truly great Italian reporter (and assistant editor of the Corriere della Sera) named Magdi Allam, we know a bit more about the event.
As Quattrocchi tried to remove the hood, he asked, "May I?" At that point, one of his captors replied — in colloquial and unaccented Italian — "in your dreams" ("neanche per sogno"). Italian analysts believe that Italian was the terrorist's mother tongue.
This is not the only example of native Italian speakers among terrorists. The three remaining Italian hostages were shown on a video broadcast on April 26, and one of them — Salvatore Stefio — spoke warmly of his captors: "So far we haven't had any trouble with them. We eat regularly and we haven't been physically maltreated in any way. All our requests to improve our stay here with them have been agreed to." This sort of statement was likely dictated by the terrorists, and at least one of them must have been relatively fluent in Italian in order to permit the statement to be taped and broadcast.
I think we can take it for granted that the terror network now contains representatives of every country in the Islamic network's gunsights, along with the cannon fodder they recruit from their own homelands. Surely they managed to recruit some Spaniards to advise them on the best way to influence the outcome of the national elections on March 11. And notice that in the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, the terrorists told potential victims that they would be spared so long as they were Muslim, even if they were Americans. You can be sure there are plenty of Americans in the terrorists' ranks who know how to ask the life-and-death questions of us.
So, as Allam says, we are dealing with a truly international terror organization, and he reinforces the conclusion by comparing the very similar language used to attack Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi by Islamic terrorists in several different countries. In addition to the common denunciations of Berlusconi, these statements all demonstrate considerable knowledge of Italian politics — far more than is found in the Arab or Iranian press.
"The globalization of terrorism is an undoubted success for bin Laden. It is sufficiently serious and frightening to induce (Saudi) Prince Abdullah — according to credible secret sources — to negotiate with bin Laden a secret agreement to prevent the fall of the monarchy, based on their common hated of America and Israel." According to Allam, that agreement explains Abdullah's statement, following the May 1 terror attack, blaming "Zionism" for terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Other sources tell Allam the same thing I have heard, namely that the Saudi royal family has prepared a detailed plan to run abroad if the situation gets much worse, and that knowledge of the royal family's intentions is a major component in the recent rise in the price of oil. Meanwhile, the Saudis are buying insurance by supporting the terrorists in Iraq.
All of this should make us redouble our efforts in the war against terrorism, and remind us that we are not fighting a single war in a single country. The entire Middle East is a boiling cauldron right now, and with it the rest of the world. It is rare indeed to witness, first hand, the planet's destiny swinging on a single hinge, which is this generation's privilege and dread. Yet our leaders and their political opponents are obsessed with a single prison in Baghdad and a single Iraqi leader not to their liking.
It must be possible for someone in our political class to remind the nation that we are in a broad war, and we can only win it by using the full panoply of military and political weapons in our arsenal. Take the political battle to Iran and Syria, where the people have demonstrated a willingness to challenge the murderous regimes, and where al Qaeda and its allies in Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the others have found safe haven and operational support.
And I hope someone in the Pentagon has a contingency plan to secure the oil fields in the event that the CIA can't manage the Saudi situation, and the brave Abdullah and his children, brothers, sisters, cousins, and nephews race to the French Riviera.
Faster, please. This is a time for war, not speechifying.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
We are dealing with a truly international terror network.
You will, I hope, recall the heroic death of Fabrizio Quattrocchi on April 14 at the hands of jihadists in Iraq. At the time, the Italian foreign minister revealed that Quattrocchi, clawing at the hood they had placed over his head, cried out, "I will show you how an Italian dies!" Now, thanks to a truly great Italian reporter (and assistant editor of the Corriere della Sera) named Magdi Allam, we know a bit more about the event.
As Quattrocchi tried to remove the hood, he asked, "May I?" At that point, one of his captors replied — in colloquial and unaccented Italian — "in your dreams" ("neanche per sogno"). Italian analysts believe that Italian was the terrorist's mother tongue.
This is not the only example of native Italian speakers among terrorists. The three remaining Italian hostages were shown on a video broadcast on April 26, and one of them — Salvatore Stefio — spoke warmly of his captors: "So far we haven't had any trouble with them. We eat regularly and we haven't been physically maltreated in any way. All our requests to improve our stay here with them have been agreed to." This sort of statement was likely dictated by the terrorists, and at least one of them must have been relatively fluent in Italian in order to permit the statement to be taped and broadcast.
I think we can take it for granted that the terror network now contains representatives of every country in the Islamic network's gunsights, along with the cannon fodder they recruit from their own homelands. Surely they managed to recruit some Spaniards to advise them on the best way to influence the outcome of the national elections on March 11. And notice that in the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, the terrorists told potential victims that they would be spared so long as they were Muslim, even if they were Americans. You can be sure there are plenty of Americans in the terrorists' ranks who know how to ask the life-and-death questions of us.
So, as Allam says, we are dealing with a truly international terror organization, and he reinforces the conclusion by comparing the very similar language used to attack Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi by Islamic terrorists in several different countries. In addition to the common denunciations of Berlusconi, these statements all demonstrate considerable knowledge of Italian politics — far more than is found in the Arab or Iranian press.
"The globalization of terrorism is an undoubted success for bin Laden. It is sufficiently serious and frightening to induce (Saudi) Prince Abdullah — according to credible secret sources — to negotiate with bin Laden a secret agreement to prevent the fall of the monarchy, based on their common hated of America and Israel." According to Allam, that agreement explains Abdullah's statement, following the May 1 terror attack, blaming "Zionism" for terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Other sources tell Allam the same thing I have heard, namely that the Saudi royal family has prepared a detailed plan to run abroad if the situation gets much worse, and that knowledge of the royal family's intentions is a major component in the recent rise in the price of oil. Meanwhile, the Saudis are buying insurance by supporting the terrorists in Iraq.
All of this should make us redouble our efforts in the war against terrorism, and remind us that we are not fighting a single war in a single country. The entire Middle East is a boiling cauldron right now, and with it the rest of the world. It is rare indeed to witness, first hand, the planet's destiny swinging on a single hinge, which is this generation's privilege and dread. Yet our leaders and their political opponents are obsessed with a single prison in Baghdad and a single Iraqi leader not to their liking.
It must be possible for someone in our political class to remind the nation that we are in a broad war, and we can only win it by using the full panoply of military and political weapons in our arsenal. Take the political battle to Iran and Syria, where the people have demonstrated a willingness to challenge the murderous regimes, and where al Qaeda and its allies in Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the others have found safe haven and operational support.
And I hope someone in the Pentagon has a contingency plan to secure the oil fields in the event that the CIA can't manage the Saudi situation, and the brave Abdullah and his children, brothers, sisters, cousins, and nephews race to the French Riviera.
Faster, please. This is a time for war, not speechifying.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
In their words:
The dogs bark but the caravan keeps moving.
It seems that things are going against the will of the terrorists and the totalitarian regimes. The interim government is now a fact they have to accept and deal with and this is better for them than the naive nervous reactions these countries and organizations show in response to the events in the Iraqi field; their moves became tense and stumbling recently, and here I recall the reactions of Hizbollah and Iran after the clashes in Najaf; they were trying to become more Iraqi than we are by their pathetic demonstrations, as if they were given the permission from Iraqis to speak on behalf of them, when, in fact Iraqis were watching what was happening with silent approval despite the fact that the coalition troops were fighting in a city that is considered holy for many Iraqis. Iraqis proved that they’ll support any action that can help them get rid of the remnants of tyranny wherever that might take place.
Today comes another powerful strike to terrorism and the neighboring countries, when the process of forming the transitional government went very smoothly and peacefully. there was a competition between two men; Pachachi who seemed to be favored by the Americans (and by me as well) and Al-Yawer who apparently had the approval and support from most of the GC members and other political powers but Pachachi withdrew in the last moment, the move that proves my point that he was the best man for the job.
Still, Al-Yawer has many points that qualify him for the job; he’s got the support of the Shammar tribe which is one of the largest and strongest ones in Iraq that mainly reside in the west and north-west parts of Iraq which may play a major role in stabilizing that area which was always a big source of troubles. And now as one of 'their sons' is on top of the coming government they will certainly stand by his side and help in preventing the sneaking of terrorists through the western borders of Iraq.
Also the man doesn't have any significant affiliation to any religious or ethnic group which will help making him more acceptable for both, Sheiát and Sunni as well as the Kurds and other minorities.
Another point is that this man was the candidate of the Iraqis not the CPA which indicates that Iraqis had more effect in this choice than what the major media suggested.
There appears to be no rejection to the new government in the Iraqi street at all but some Iraqis expect this government to find magical solutions for all the current hardships, which is far from being a realistic expectation of course, but the good aspect is that Iraqis have shown their will to accept the change and to move forwards on the road to accomplish the mission until democracy is established.
Some might say that having a Sheikh as the new president of Iraq is a step backwards that will bring back the rule of the tribal laws but this is not accurate because the tribes do not want to rule the country; they just want to be represented in the government and have their voice heard which is a legitimate right of course, also it's a good idea because the tribes are the only power that can confront the dangerous and radical religious parties.
It's worth mentioning that Yawer, although carries the family name of a Sheikh and he's dressed like a Sheikh, is a modernized man with a high scientific degree. Also, having a cabinet that includes five female ministers should tell us that the tribes couldn't/didn't want to force their law, and at the same time carries a message to the Islamists that the interim government will provide equal opportunities to all segments of the Iraqi people.
I believe the difficulties we are going to face are very serious and could prove to be even harder than the previous ones, as the enemies of the change in the world are so many and so united against us and only by going on with our plans we can force them to abandon their dreams of bringing tyranny back to Iraq.
I believe that this move is a corner stone in the process of building the new model of democracy in the Middle East, IRAQ.
By Mohammed.
The dogs bark but the caravan keeps moving.
It seems that things are going against the will of the terrorists and the totalitarian regimes. The interim government is now a fact they have to accept and deal with and this is better for them than the naive nervous reactions these countries and organizations show in response to the events in the Iraqi field; their moves became tense and stumbling recently, and here I recall the reactions of Hizbollah and Iran after the clashes in Najaf; they were trying to become more Iraqi than we are by their pathetic demonstrations, as if they were given the permission from Iraqis to speak on behalf of them, when, in fact Iraqis were watching what was happening with silent approval despite the fact that the coalition troops were fighting in a city that is considered holy for many Iraqis. Iraqis proved that they’ll support any action that can help them get rid of the remnants of tyranny wherever that might take place.
Today comes another powerful strike to terrorism and the neighboring countries, when the process of forming the transitional government went very smoothly and peacefully. there was a competition between two men; Pachachi who seemed to be favored by the Americans (and by me as well) and Al-Yawer who apparently had the approval and support from most of the GC members and other political powers but Pachachi withdrew in the last moment, the move that proves my point that he was the best man for the job.
Still, Al-Yawer has many points that qualify him for the job; he’s got the support of the Shammar tribe which is one of the largest and strongest ones in Iraq that mainly reside in the west and north-west parts of Iraq which may play a major role in stabilizing that area which was always a big source of troubles. And now as one of 'their sons' is on top of the coming government they will certainly stand by his side and help in preventing the sneaking of terrorists through the western borders of Iraq.
Also the man doesn't have any significant affiliation to any religious or ethnic group which will help making him more acceptable for both, Sheiát and Sunni as well as the Kurds and other minorities.
Another point is that this man was the candidate of the Iraqis not the CPA which indicates that Iraqis had more effect in this choice than what the major media suggested.
There appears to be no rejection to the new government in the Iraqi street at all but some Iraqis expect this government to find magical solutions for all the current hardships, which is far from being a realistic expectation of course, but the good aspect is that Iraqis have shown their will to accept the change and to move forwards on the road to accomplish the mission until democracy is established.
Some might say that having a Sheikh as the new president of Iraq is a step backwards that will bring back the rule of the tribal laws but this is not accurate because the tribes do not want to rule the country; they just want to be represented in the government and have their voice heard which is a legitimate right of course, also it's a good idea because the tribes are the only power that can confront the dangerous and radical religious parties.
It's worth mentioning that Yawer, although carries the family name of a Sheikh and he's dressed like a Sheikh, is a modernized man with a high scientific degree. Also, having a cabinet that includes five female ministers should tell us that the tribes couldn't/didn't want to force their law, and at the same time carries a message to the Islamists that the interim government will provide equal opportunities to all segments of the Iraqi people.
I believe the difficulties we are going to face are very serious and could prove to be even harder than the previous ones, as the enemies of the change in the world are so many and so united against us and only by going on with our plans we can force them to abandon their dreams of bringing tyranny back to Iraq.
I believe that this move is a corner stone in the process of building the new model of democracy in the Middle East, IRAQ.
By Mohammed.
They'll tell you it's irrelevant, but Iraq has a new president ( and it's not Saddam ). They will say it's a puppet, but Iraq has a new government, and it's not Baath.
Hurrah for Iraq. May you always be able to freely chose your own.
Hurrah for Iraq. May you always be able to freely chose your own.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Memorial Day - We thank you all, from the bottom of our hearts.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Iraq and the Arab illusion
(translated article by Dr. Shakir Al-Nabulsi)
During the second half of the 20th century, and after gaining independence, the Arab world lived the illusion of being a great and victorious nation (umma), capable of making history again after the end of colonialism which was purported to be the sole reason for this umma not to play its envisioned historical role.
It was proven later, however, after the end of colonialism, that this umma was extremely weak in its scientific, cultural, economical, and military abilities, incapable of achieving progress in any field, and due to the media blackout, and the absence of vital social statistics and information excluding, of course, the false misleading information regularly released by official governmental circles for appropriate propaganda and political purposes, the Arab society wallowed in their grand illusion.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would have the power to achieve unity after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world attempted over 20 unity experiments during the second half of the 20th century all of which were met with failure for several different reasons, the first being the illusion itself of the ability to achieve unity.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to bring freedom to its peoples after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world has been ruled for decades by dictatorships and tyrannies which brought even more misery to the Arab people than the rule of colonialists, to the extent that some are now longing for the days of colonialism, wishing they would return.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to implement socialism after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world was immersed into a system of state capitalism which dealt with sales and purchases starting from Felafil sandwiches to refrigerators, automobiles, washing machines, and houses. Corruption flourished in industry and commerce, and the 'general sector' was reduced to both a sad and funny example of this economical failure, the Arab world sunk in debts (over 300 billion dollars), when in the past a nation such as Great Britain owed a country such as Egypt over 500 million pounds worth of cotton and other unpaid goods, and now Egypt imports 80% of the ingredients of Felafil as the Egyptian Supply Minister stated days ago!
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would have the power to achieve victory over Israel and return the Palestinian right to its owners after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world was unable to win not even one battle, or part of one, even though it went through 3 major wars and tens of secondary ones, and that the first half of the 20th century witnessed the loss of a quarter of Palestinian land, whereas the Arabs after gaining independence lost the other three quarters in the second half as we can see now. The Arab world lived the illusion of victory in every one of their lost battles, and to this day we refuse to admit our defeats. We still call the 1967 war the naksa, as we did before in the 1956 Suez war.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to successfully exploit its vast natural resources after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world after briefly appearing prosperous during the seventies reverted suddenly to its past poverty due to its flawed financial management, high consumption rates, the explosion of population growth, unemployment, and flourishing of the terrorism market paid in sparkling yellow gold as announced by Bin Laden recently.
Illusion remained the major player of the incredible Arab scene. Illusion remained a drug that allowed us to sleep in delicious numbness until the information revolution exploded and exposed the Arab situation. The Arab world was classified in all fields at the bottom of the list of the world's nations, as revealed in UN reports for 2002-2003. The Arab world was shocked for living under a false illusion.
Religion did not lift us from the bottom.
Pan-Arab nationalism did not lift us from the bottom.
Our glorious ancestors did not appeal to prevent us from falling into the pit.
Our Hamasa and heroism poetry did not save us from falling.
Our Friday prayers sermons which assure us that we are "khaira ummatin ukhrijat lilnas" (the greatest nation brought out to people) did not save us.
The fiery speeches of leaders immortalised in the collective Arab memory did not save us.
Sorcery, magic, djinn, Sufi hymns, Darawish prayers, fatwas, and blessings of saints all did not help save us from falling into the void.
***
Today, the Arab world lives the illusion again in regard to the situation in Iraq, which is an extension to the Pan-Arab, unifying, socialist, democratic, military illusion that Arabs have been living in for over half a century.
A week ago I returned from Beirut where I attended the 'Arab Institution for Intellectual Modernisation' conference in which more than a 150 representatives of the Arab intelligentsia from all over the Arab world participated. I had the opportunity through this conference and my stay in Beirut -which is the mirror of the Arab world- to be closely informed about the different viewpoints of Arab intellectuals on the Iraqi situation. It appeared to me that the Arab world still lives in a huge illusion regarding Iraq, and other Arab issues. The majority of Arab intellectuals still live the illusion of unity, the illusion of freedom, the illusion of democracy that will come from inside on the back of an Arab camel or a white Arab horse, that Saladin will reappear to return the lost glories of the umma, that Al-Mahdi will turn the pitch black night of this umma into shining daylight, and that the destiny of this umma is this bloody conflict with others. It appeared that the rhetoric of the 21st century has not much differed from that of the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, the tongues have changed, but the words remain the same, the masks have changed, but the minds remain the same.
The Arab world, in its entirety, still bets on the return of Ba'athist rule to Iraq, and another part of the Arab world, even more deep in illusion, still bets on the return of Saddam, describing him as the 'the symbol, 'the leader neccessity', or the Shahid who has not died yet. And the Arab world, still living in illusion, believes in the Iraqi muqqawama ('resistance'), which is in fact a terrorist muqqawala (contractors) and not a national resistance, meaning that they are composed of groups of armed contractors, and defeated Arab mercenaries from Afghanistan and the Arab streets, which have lost all hope in the future, and all the bets of the present, dreaming of achieving the myth of the Islamic Khilafa (Caliphate) all of which was oppressive and bloody including the Ottoman Caliphate and the Taliban Emirate. That Arab world believes this terrorist muqqawala will win in Iraq over the will of the Iraqi people, and over the Iraqi future. That same Arab world living in illusion, believed that the army of Muqtada Al-Sadr will join forces with the remnants of the armed 'contractors', posing a significant threat to coalition troops forcing them to pull out from Iraq leaving it to be ruled by these groups. Today the Army of Al-Mahdi is backing and the illusioned Arab world is biting its fingers grieving over its lost hope. That same Arab world living in illusion believed that a scandal caused by a group of sick demented soldiers from the coalition such as the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison will tip the balance in favour of the armed 'contractors' in Iraq which announced recently that it will pay their wages in pure gold, instead of bank notes, fixing the prices of 'necks' in a statement by Bin Laden himself.
The question here is: Why did the Arab world live in all this illusion throughout the last half century?
The answer to this question is that the Arab world acts cowardly with itself, self-delusionary, lacking the neccessary courage to recognise and admit to the facts on the ground as was done in Japan and Germany after WWII, and that the Arab world lacks the necessary courage to admit to its self-insufficiencies, its weakness, poverty, ignorance, and its poor scientific and practical capabilities. Therefore, the Arab world will never advance as long as it regards itself advanced and not behind, it will never learn as long as it regards itself learned and not ignorant, it will never seek power as long as it regards itself powerful and not weak. This neurotic swelling, this pathologic tumour, this nostalgia of submitting in humiliation to the dead glories of the past in the Arab psyche, and this phobia were all reasons that we live such a grand illusion. Since the Arab world believes to this day -as told by its civil and armed religious institutions- that the road to the future passes only through the holy cities, that the past is the nerve of the future, that who has no first has no last, that heritage is better than modernity, that ancestors are better than the inheritors, that the rule of ancestors from the grave is better than the rule of inheritors today. The Arab world believes to this day -as told by its civil and armed Pan-Arab and religious institutions- that Andalus (Spain) will be returned, that Palestine will be liberated from the river to the sea, that Iskenderun will be returned, that Al-Mahdi will reappear, that the rule of Saddam Hussein and mass graves will return to Iraq, and that Saddam as he won before, with the support of Pan-Arab and religious institutions headed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ba'ath party- in the first Gulf War from behind trenches, will win again today, from behind bars!
(translated article by Dr. Shakir Al-Nabulsi)
During the second half of the 20th century, and after gaining independence, the Arab world lived the illusion of being a great and victorious nation (umma), capable of making history again after the end of colonialism which was purported to be the sole reason for this umma not to play its envisioned historical role.
It was proven later, however, after the end of colonialism, that this umma was extremely weak in its scientific, cultural, economical, and military abilities, incapable of achieving progress in any field, and due to the media blackout, and the absence of vital social statistics and information excluding, of course, the false misleading information regularly released by official governmental circles for appropriate propaganda and political purposes, the Arab society wallowed in their grand illusion.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would have the power to achieve unity after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world attempted over 20 unity experiments during the second half of the 20th century all of which were met with failure for several different reasons, the first being the illusion itself of the ability to achieve unity.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to bring freedom to its peoples after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world has been ruled for decades by dictatorships and tyrannies which brought even more misery to the Arab people than the rule of colonialists, to the extent that some are now longing for the days of colonialism, wishing they would return.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to implement socialism after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world was immersed into a system of state capitalism which dealt with sales and purchases starting from Felafil sandwiches to refrigerators, automobiles, washing machines, and houses. Corruption flourished in industry and commerce, and the 'general sector' was reduced to both a sad and funny example of this economical failure, the Arab world sunk in debts (over 300 billion dollars), when in the past a nation such as Great Britain owed a country such as Egypt over 500 million pounds worth of cotton and other unpaid goods, and now Egypt imports 80% of the ingredients of Felafil as the Egyptian Supply Minister stated days ago!
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would have the power to achieve victory over Israel and return the Palestinian right to its owners after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world was unable to win not even one battle, or part of one, even though it went through 3 major wars and tens of secondary ones, and that the first half of the 20th century witnessed the loss of a quarter of Palestinian land, whereas the Arabs after gaining independence lost the other three quarters in the second half as we can see now. The Arab world lived the illusion of victory in every one of their lost battles, and to this day we refuse to admit our defeats. We still call the 1967 war the naksa, as we did before in the 1956 Suez war.
The Arab world lived the illusion that it would be able to successfully exploit its vast natural resources after the end of colonialism. It was proven, however, that the Arab world after briefly appearing prosperous during the seventies reverted suddenly to its past poverty due to its flawed financial management, high consumption rates, the explosion of population growth, unemployment, and flourishing of the terrorism market paid in sparkling yellow gold as announced by Bin Laden recently.
Illusion remained the major player of the incredible Arab scene. Illusion remained a drug that allowed us to sleep in delicious numbness until the information revolution exploded and exposed the Arab situation. The Arab world was classified in all fields at the bottom of the list of the world's nations, as revealed in UN reports for 2002-2003. The Arab world was shocked for living under a false illusion.
Religion did not lift us from the bottom.
Pan-Arab nationalism did not lift us from the bottom.
Our glorious ancestors did not appeal to prevent us from falling into the pit.
Our Hamasa and heroism poetry did not save us from falling.
Our Friday prayers sermons which assure us that we are "khaira ummatin ukhrijat lilnas" (the greatest nation brought out to people) did not save us.
The fiery speeches of leaders immortalised in the collective Arab memory did not save us.
Sorcery, magic, djinn, Sufi hymns, Darawish prayers, fatwas, and blessings of saints all did not help save us from falling into the void.
***
Today, the Arab world lives the illusion again in regard to the situation in Iraq, which is an extension to the Pan-Arab, unifying, socialist, democratic, military illusion that Arabs have been living in for over half a century.
A week ago I returned from Beirut where I attended the 'Arab Institution for Intellectual Modernisation' conference in which more than a 150 representatives of the Arab intelligentsia from all over the Arab world participated. I had the opportunity through this conference and my stay in Beirut -which is the mirror of the Arab world- to be closely informed about the different viewpoints of Arab intellectuals on the Iraqi situation. It appeared to me that the Arab world still lives in a huge illusion regarding Iraq, and other Arab issues. The majority of Arab intellectuals still live the illusion of unity, the illusion of freedom, the illusion of democracy that will come from inside on the back of an Arab camel or a white Arab horse, that Saladin will reappear to return the lost glories of the umma, that Al-Mahdi will turn the pitch black night of this umma into shining daylight, and that the destiny of this umma is this bloody conflict with others. It appeared that the rhetoric of the 21st century has not much differed from that of the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, the tongues have changed, but the words remain the same, the masks have changed, but the minds remain the same.
The Arab world, in its entirety, still bets on the return of Ba'athist rule to Iraq, and another part of the Arab world, even more deep in illusion, still bets on the return of Saddam, describing him as the 'the symbol, 'the leader neccessity', or the Shahid who has not died yet. And the Arab world, still living in illusion, believes in the Iraqi muqqawama ('resistance'), which is in fact a terrorist muqqawala (contractors) and not a national resistance, meaning that they are composed of groups of armed contractors, and defeated Arab mercenaries from Afghanistan and the Arab streets, which have lost all hope in the future, and all the bets of the present, dreaming of achieving the myth of the Islamic Khilafa (Caliphate) all of which was oppressive and bloody including the Ottoman Caliphate and the Taliban Emirate. That Arab world believes this terrorist muqqawala will win in Iraq over the will of the Iraqi people, and over the Iraqi future. That same Arab world living in illusion, believed that the army of Muqtada Al-Sadr will join forces with the remnants of the armed 'contractors', posing a significant threat to coalition troops forcing them to pull out from Iraq leaving it to be ruled by these groups. Today the Army of Al-Mahdi is backing and the illusioned Arab world is biting its fingers grieving over its lost hope. That same Arab world living in illusion believed that a scandal caused by a group of sick demented soldiers from the coalition such as the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison will tip the balance in favour of the armed 'contractors' in Iraq which announced recently that it will pay their wages in pure gold, instead of bank notes, fixing the prices of 'necks' in a statement by Bin Laden himself.
The question here is: Why did the Arab world live in all this illusion throughout the last half century?
The answer to this question is that the Arab world acts cowardly with itself, self-delusionary, lacking the neccessary courage to recognise and admit to the facts on the ground as was done in Japan and Germany after WWII, and that the Arab world lacks the necessary courage to admit to its self-insufficiencies, its weakness, poverty, ignorance, and its poor scientific and practical capabilities. Therefore, the Arab world will never advance as long as it regards itself advanced and not behind, it will never learn as long as it regards itself learned and not ignorant, it will never seek power as long as it regards itself powerful and not weak. This neurotic swelling, this pathologic tumour, this nostalgia of submitting in humiliation to the dead glories of the past in the Arab psyche, and this phobia were all reasons that we live such a grand illusion. Since the Arab world believes to this day -as told by its civil and armed religious institutions- that the road to the future passes only through the holy cities, that the past is the nerve of the future, that who has no first has no last, that heritage is better than modernity, that ancestors are better than the inheritors, that the rule of ancestors from the grave is better than the rule of inheritors today. The Arab world believes to this day -as told by its civil and armed Pan-Arab and religious institutions- that Andalus (Spain) will be returned, that Palestine will be liberated from the river to the sea, that Iskenderun will be returned, that Al-Mahdi will reappear, that the rule of Saddam Hussein and mass graves will return to Iraq, and that Saddam as he won before, with the support of Pan-Arab and religious institutions headed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ba'ath party- in the first Gulf War from behind trenches, will win again today, from behind bars!
Tilting the Playing Field
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The American public has been treated to such a festival of mea, wea and hea culpas on Iraq lately it could be forgiven for feeling utterly lost. Americans are caught between a president who continues to wax utopian about Iraq and an analytical community that has become consumed by despair. This is no way to run a railroad. There are better ways to think about this problem. A good place to start is by thinking about Russia.
I have a "Tilt Theory of History." The Tilt Theory states that countries and cultures do not change by sudden transformations. They change when, by wise diplomacy and leadership, you take a country, a culture or a region that has been tilted in the wrong direction and tilt it in the right direction, so that the process of gradual internal transformation can take place over a generation.
I believe that history will judge George Bush 41, Mikhail Gorbachev, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand very kindly for the way they collectively took the Soviet Empire, which was tilted in the wrong direction for so long, and tilted it in the right direction, with barely a shot fired. That was one of the great achievements of the 20th century.
Is Vladimir Putin's Russia today a Jeffersonian democracy? Of course not. But it is a huge nation that was tilted in the wrong direction and is now tilted in the right direction. My definition of a country tilted in the right direction is a country where there is enough free market, enough rule of law, enough free press, speech and exchange of ideas that the true agent of change in history — which is something that takes nine months and 21 years to develop, i.e. a generation — can grow up, plan its future and realize its potential.
Democracy-building is always a work in progress — two steps forward, one step back. No one should have expected a utopian transformation of Iraq. Iraq is like every other tribalized Arab state, where democracy is everyone's third choice. Their first choice is always: "My tribe wins and my rivals lose." Second choice is: "My tribe loses, so yours must lose too." Third choice is: "My tribe wins and so do my rivals."
Our hope should be that Iraqis back into democracy, back into that third choice — not as a result of reading our Bill of Rights but by reading their own situation and deciding that a pragmatic, power-sharing compromise among themselves is better than endless violence. Democracy will take root in Iraq through realism, not idealism. We did not and cannot liberate Iraqis. They have to liberate themselves. That is what the Japanese and Germans did. All we can hope to do is help them tilt their country in a positive direction so the next generation grows up in an environment where progressive forces and win-win politics are not stymied by a predatory state tilted against them.
"I think this is a good time for sober realism, which means focusing on what is possible in Iraq, and what is the minimum we want from Iraq, not on what we would ideally like in Iraq," notes Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert, whose delightful new book, just out this week, entitled "The Meaning of Sports," contains many parallels between what makes for successful teams and successful countries. "The minimum we want is an Iraq that is reasonably stable, and doesn't harbor terrorists or threaten its neighbors."
As one who believed — and still does — in the possibility and the importance of tilting the Arab-Muslim world from the wrong directions detailed in the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Reports to the right ones, I detest the politically driven failures of the Bush team in Iraq. In a panic, the Bush team, having lost its exaggerated realist rationale for the war — W.M.D. — has now gone to the other extreme and offered us an exaggerated idealist rationale — that all Iraqis crave freedom and democracy and we can deliver this transformation shortly, if we just stick to it.
We need to rebalance our policy. We still have a chance to do in Iraq the only thing that was always the only thing possible — tilt it in a better direction — so over a generation Iraqis can transform and liberate themselves, if they want. What might an Iraq tilted in the right direction look like? It would be more religious than Turkey, more secular than Iran, more federal than Syria, more democratic than Saudi Arabia and more stable than Afghanistan.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The American public has been treated to such a festival of mea, wea and hea culpas on Iraq lately it could be forgiven for feeling utterly lost. Americans are caught between a president who continues to wax utopian about Iraq and an analytical community that has become consumed by despair. This is no way to run a railroad. There are better ways to think about this problem. A good place to start is by thinking about Russia.
I have a "Tilt Theory of History." The Tilt Theory states that countries and cultures do not change by sudden transformations. They change when, by wise diplomacy and leadership, you take a country, a culture or a region that has been tilted in the wrong direction and tilt it in the right direction, so that the process of gradual internal transformation can take place over a generation.
I believe that history will judge George Bush 41, Mikhail Gorbachev, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand very kindly for the way they collectively took the Soviet Empire, which was tilted in the wrong direction for so long, and tilted it in the right direction, with barely a shot fired. That was one of the great achievements of the 20th century.
Is Vladimir Putin's Russia today a Jeffersonian democracy? Of course not. But it is a huge nation that was tilted in the wrong direction and is now tilted in the right direction. My definition of a country tilted in the right direction is a country where there is enough free market, enough rule of law, enough free press, speech and exchange of ideas that the true agent of change in history — which is something that takes nine months and 21 years to develop, i.e. a generation — can grow up, plan its future and realize its potential.
Democracy-building is always a work in progress — two steps forward, one step back. No one should have expected a utopian transformation of Iraq. Iraq is like every other tribalized Arab state, where democracy is everyone's third choice. Their first choice is always: "My tribe wins and my rivals lose." Second choice is: "My tribe loses, so yours must lose too." Third choice is: "My tribe wins and so do my rivals."
Our hope should be that Iraqis back into democracy, back into that third choice — not as a result of reading our Bill of Rights but by reading their own situation and deciding that a pragmatic, power-sharing compromise among themselves is better than endless violence. Democracy will take root in Iraq through realism, not idealism. We did not and cannot liberate Iraqis. They have to liberate themselves. That is what the Japanese and Germans did. All we can hope to do is help them tilt their country in a positive direction so the next generation grows up in an environment where progressive forces and win-win politics are not stymied by a predatory state tilted against them.
"I think this is a good time for sober realism, which means focusing on what is possible in Iraq, and what is the minimum we want from Iraq, not on what we would ideally like in Iraq," notes Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert, whose delightful new book, just out this week, entitled "The Meaning of Sports," contains many parallels between what makes for successful teams and successful countries. "The minimum we want is an Iraq that is reasonably stable, and doesn't harbor terrorists or threaten its neighbors."
As one who believed — and still does — in the possibility and the importance of tilting the Arab-Muslim world from the wrong directions detailed in the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Reports to the right ones, I detest the politically driven failures of the Bush team in Iraq. In a panic, the Bush team, having lost its exaggerated realist rationale for the war — W.M.D. — has now gone to the other extreme and offered us an exaggerated idealist rationale — that all Iraqis crave freedom and democracy and we can deliver this transformation shortly, if we just stick to it.
We need to rebalance our policy. We still have a chance to do in Iraq the only thing that was always the only thing possible — tilt it in a better direction — so over a generation Iraqis can transform and liberate themselves, if they want. What might an Iraq tilted in the right direction look like? It would be more religious than Turkey, more secular than Iran, more federal than Syria, more democratic than Saudi Arabia and more stable than Afghanistan.
