Conservative and liberal news forums and Internet sites are filled with guest columns by contributors with bylines that create an impression of authority or prestige. I find myself frequently wondering why respectable publications would solicit and publish material from certain contributors, especially when their material is filled with simplistic clichéd arguments laced with malicious and overtly bigoted blanket statements about the peoples of entire regions of the world. As a regular reader of the conservative
Washington Times (foil to the liberal behemoth
Washington Post) I read with great consternation and disgust
today’s “contribution” to the Commentary section by Daniel Gallington, a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va.
Washington Times readers should wonder what is required to become a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute, if Gallington’s work is any representation. Gallington presented generalized arguments with no supporting documentation and espoused the idea that certain people, in this case Iraqis, are too dumb, too dirty, and “just don’t have it in them” to make democracy work. That such a column appeared at all in the pages of what is considered the flagship conservative newspaper in America defies logical explanation.
Gallington titled his Iraqi character assassination piece, “Wanted: Iraqi Patriots,” but rather than cite any of the ample examples of Iraqis dedicated to democracy, such as the millions of voters who braved suicide bombings and snipers to participate in the nation’s first truly democratic election, Gallington instead crafted an indictment of all Iraqis as corrupt, greedy, ignorant, filthy, and backwards. In doing so he joined Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others who are convinced the war is lost and that
Iraqis are not and never were worth fighting for. I have written extensively on Capital Cloak about the issue of freedom and democracy, that
those fortunate enough to possess them are obligated to offer them to others and support those attempting to acquire them for themselves. I have also previously pointed out the fallacies of the arrogant belief that only certain anointed peoples in the world are worthy of democracy or “
have it in them” to organize and live under democratic governments. Gallington, better than Reid or Pelosi, captured the true essence and vile sense of superiority behind such bigotry.
The presumably esteemed senior fellow Gallington opened his anti-Iraqi diatribe by stating the three things he believed Iraqis need to do, which are rather obvious:
(1) Create a functional multicultural state, federal or otherwise.
(2) Institute or enable some fundamental social reforms.
(3) Work out a formula or policy for the division of oil revenues.
Is it all that hard?
Perhaps Gallington, in his search for “Iraqi patriots,” should reexamine American history to answer his own simplistic and sophomoric question. Yes, even accomplishing the first of those three things is a monumental task, one that required 11 years for Americans themselves to achieve after years of political wrangling, endless debate, and regional suspicions and hostility. The colonies declared independence in 1776 and operated under a loose confederacy cobbled together for wartime harmony. Yet it was not until the hot summer of 1787 that a constitution was born, which then required ratification. Creating a “functional multicultural state” as Gallington called it, was not easy for the Founding Fathers, who had decades of experience in statecraft and political theory on which to rely. Should we expect the Iraqis to resolve the issues in less than half the time?
Gallington’s second simple task for Iraqis, instituting “some fundamental social reforms,” begs the obvious question: what kind of reforms? No explanation of this cryptic recommendation is offered, no suggestions made, and no examples cited. Gallington could find work as a speech writer for generic political candidates in today’s America, who win elections by promising to “bring change to Washington” or “to reform the tax code,” or “to reform Social Security.” Such statements mean nothing because they explain nothing. If Gallington cannot provide specific examples of social reforms that need to be made by Iraqis, it seems rather presumptuous for him to lecture an entire people on their failures.
The third “simple” task Gallington expects of Iraqis is a nationally accepted formula for the division of national oil revenues. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stated eloquently how difficult such a division is but that progress in being made on that front. I wonder if Gallington has given any serious consideration to the concept of dividing a nation’s resources. What portion of America’s revenues from its own wells is Gallington receiving? The likely answer, not just for Gallington but for all of us, is none. There has never been a great national political debate in which existing resources such as oil have been divvied up and revenues shared by all. Yet many are impatient that Iraqis are struggling to determine how to distribute equitably the enormous revenue generated by oil production. Everyone wants a piece of the economic pie, and finding a solution that serves the needs of the major religious or ethnic factions in a large nation is no simple task. Again, Gallington here offered no suggestions or encouragement, merely condemnation for not yet achieving what our own country has never attempted.
Unfortunately, Gallington more than adequately expressed his bigoted opinion of why Iraq’s factions have not yet united as cohesively as the Bush administration had hoped:
The various leaders have all seen versions of this same instability before and are hedging their bets — they all have contingency plans for political and economic survival in the event of our failure. Most have their secret offshore money, their escape plan to the villa in the South of France, the kids in Swiss schools, etc....It’s the malaise that probably most affects our day-to-day success or failure there: In short, if it often looks as if they don’t care how it turns out, they may not.
We shouldn’t be surprised about these intractable attitudes: Compromise has never been a part of politics in the Middle East and it’s not about to start in Iraq…
Mafia-like corruption is an embedded way of life in Iraq and the Middle East….
Widespread ignorance on a colossal scale, especially in the vast rural regions, is a huge factor that works against a unified, multicultural and modern Iraq…
…These are people who perform basic human hygiene with one hand and eat with the other.
In sum, the Iraqis don’t seem to have their hearts in it…. They must have their hearts in it or they will fail at it. Finally, as sad a proposition as it may be for us, we may have to understand — and accept — that they just don’t have it in them.
Many who have visited or fought in Iraq have returned with very different opinions of the Iraqi people and their capacity for self rule under democracy. Where Gallington sees people performing “basic human hygiene with one hand” while eating with the other, the world has also seen purple-stained fingers raised in the “v” symbol after voting in a democratic election, many of which fingers belong to veiled women who were never previously allowed any participation in political discourse. Where Gallington cannot see past hygiene, those who believe freedom and democracy are to be shared with all peoples see heroism.
The Middle East has not cornered the market on corruption, and it is no more a way of life there than it is in the world’s democracies. Recent congressional scandals help illustrate that fact, but it is instructive to note Gallington’s choice of words. “Mafia-like corruption” is used to indict the entire Middle East and forms the basis for his argument that democracy will never work in that region, yet the Mafia was not a Middle Eastern creation. Italy, a democracy, was the birthplace to that particular brand of corruption, and its tentacles spread throughout the free world. We have battled it here in America, yet democracy has marched forward even in nations plagued by organized crime. Gallington clearly implied here that Middle Eastern peoples are more corrupt than their western counterparts and are ethnically unsuited for the freedom and democracy the west has achieved despite corruption.
The idea that “compromise has never been a part of politics in the Middle East” is a remarkably bigoted and historically inaccurate notion. The ancient Middle Eastern cultures relied almost exclusively on trade, as agriculture often needed to be imported as it could not be grown in local climates. Trade agreements formed the basis of mutually beneficial international relationships that often endured for decades or centuries at a time. Compromise was most certainly the central ingredient of Middle Eastern politics long before western powers became actively involved in the region, with compromises controlling access to wells, seaports, aqueducts, and other essential resources. To paint the entire Middle East as a region incapable of compromise suggests that Gallington considers the peoples of the region inferior in all respects to his own and does not attempt to conceal his disdain for the “backwardness” of Middle Eastern peoples.
As for the search for Iraqi patriots or Gallington’s opinion that the Iraqis “just don’t have it in them,” perhaps a more suitable use of the Potomac Institute’s research resources would be to pinpoint when American’s reverted from an enlightened populace dedicated to the inalienable rights of man granted by Divine Providence to a citizenry that arrogantly believes the peoples of the Middle East are too backwards, ignorant, or filthy to be worthy of our freedoms. Perhaps we will find that millions of Iraqis, under threat of bombings and snipers in their daily work in parliament, possess more patriotic fervor for democracy than is found among many of our elected officials safely entrenched and protected in the nation’s capital who are so willing to surrender to terrorists and withdraw from Iraq before its government can adequately defend itself.
If Iraqi hearts are failing, as Gallington suggests, it is because Democrats and some Republicans in America “just don’t have it in them” to patiently support a free Iraq that is pleading, even in newspaper editorial pages, for us not to abandon them to the ethnic or religious oppression from which they were recently liberated. It took our Founders 11 years including fighting a war before a constitution and a truly functional central government was created. Why do we expect Iraq to do likewise after only 4 years?
Americans must rise above the arrogant superiority complex displayed by Reid, Pelosi, and “senior fellows” like Gallington and demonstrate to the world a model nation and people worthy of emulation by humbly embracing all peoples who strive for freedom and democracy regardless of their “hygiene, “corruption,” or “ignorance.” More important than these three indictments by Gallington are desire, effort, and patient assistance. Those are the three things Iraqis must have if democracy is to succeed. If Gallington doesn’t believe Iraqis are worthy of our blood and sacrifice, one wonders whom he would consider worthy? The continued upsurge in reenlistments for additional tours of duty in Iraq is evidence that our fighting men, though not “senior fellows” at an institute, understand the value of spreading freedom as a universal, rather than exclusively American, right of all men.
Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Iraqi Democracy Daniel Gallington Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Bigotry Iraq War
outside one of London’s most popular night clubs early this morning is naturally the story of the day, and media reports are saturated with mostly similar summaries of what is known at this point about the incident. The Associated Press, not surprisingly, reported earlier that there was no known link to terrorism, while more responsible news outlets obtained information connecting the construction and materials used in the foiled bomb to a known al Qaeda bomb maker. Conflicting media reports are not unusual in the early stages of a significant terrorist plot investigation, and rather than dwell on media inconsistencies I offer a few observations on this morning’s bomb discovery.
. In that film, the seemingly 
