pol·i·tics

Returning to the dispute over Iraq funding.

The rhetoric over "pork" spending being added to the Iraq funding bill is both interesting and pointless. It's interesting because it shows how people will suspend their prejudices when things are in their favor or according to their own desires. It's pointless because it's nothing new. To wit: this story, noting that, "...such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb."

For those who missed it, there was also a story a few days ago in the Times about a visit which John McCain and some other members of Congress paid to a Baghdad market, which led to McCain's comments that the liberal press was painting an unfairly poor picture of Iraq. In reply, rebuttals from the Washington Post and New York Times.

The thing is, McCain is correct to a degree. I'm sure there are many great things going on; in the worst situations it seems there are always acts of random, altruistic goodness (which get turned into Hollywood movies so we can all feel good about ourselves, but that's another post topic), and I'm sure progress might be being made outside and even within Baghdad, in terms of building infrastructure and whatnot. But it is somewhat difficult to ignore people dying and continuing to die in acts of premeditated terror. Wasn't the insurgency in its "death throes" a few years ago? Wasn't Al-Zarqawi the head of the serpent, and wouldn't the rest fall into disarray without him? Consider this, from the Times article: "'Every time the government announces anything — that the electricity is good or the water supply is good — the insurgents come to attack it immediately,' said Abu Samer, 49, who would give only his nickname out of concern for his safety."

You cannot win a fight against an insurgent or guerilla force with a purely military operation. There has to be a political element, because you have to win hearts and minds. And the point when the Americans could have done so in Iraq is, in my opinion, long past. Throwing more troops at it might create the security to rebuild, but how long can America maintain those troop levels? 2 months? 6? A year? 5 years? Infrastructure (power, water, sewage plants and the like) can only be built so quickly, and what of the political processes? Yeah, wow, they voted. People are so happy! They have a democracy! There's no reason for anyone to kill anyone else anymore!

It is somewhat horrible to say, but if the US wanted to rebuild Iraq as they did Japan and Germany after the Second World War, they actually should have done more damage during the invasion. Only out of such physical, emotional and mental devastation will a people accept such widespread changes forced upon them by another. And even then, given the sectarian divisions which didn't (I don't think) exist in 1950s Germany and Japan, the rebuilding process in Iraq still might have failed.