Times: Iraqis Too Dirty, Ignorant, Corrupt

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

Reid, Pelosi Lack Al-Maliki's Faith, Spine

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, in a politically correct euphemism, “diplomatically challenged.” This condition has manifested itself through various symptoms over the past six months, including Pelosi’s unconstitutional and borderline treasonous “diplomatic” visit to Syria, Harry Reid’s declaration to the world and the enemy that “the war is lost” in Iraq, and their newest premature and impatient judgment that the surge strategy currently underway in Iraq is a failure, giving even more encouragement to the enemy attempting to destroy Iraq’s democratically elected government. Despite the pleading of Iraq’s parliamentary leaders and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki for the U.S. to remain steadfast in its defense of the Iraqi democracy, the pleas have fallen on Reid’s and Pelosi’s deaf ears, blind eyes, and cold hearts, resulting in an international cold shoulder that is the antithesis of responsible diplomacy.

Never mind the fact that Reid and Pelosi have judged the surge a failure 3 months in advance of the scheduled progress report to be delivered by General Petraeus in September. Never mind the fact that Petraeus’ current summaries reveal significant reductions in violence and increased rebuilding in the Anbar province. Reid and Pelosi remind me of a line from the George Banks character in Disney’s Mary Poppins. While in a particularly irritable mood, Banks sits down at the piano in his home, plays one note, and promptly judges that the piano is out of tune. He then chastens his incredibly patient wife for allowing the piano to have become out of tune. He states to her, “When I sit down to an instrument, I expect it be in tune.” Mrs. Banks points out, “But dear, you don’t play.” George Banks, in classic Reid/Pelosi mentality, shouts in response, “Madam that is entirely beside the point. Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts!”

What are the facts on progress in Iraq and the effectiveness of the surge strategy? General Petraeus stated that the results thus far have been mixed, with “breathtaking” achievements in some provinces, but increased violence in others. Reid and Pelosi do want their issues clouded with facts, and so they choose to ignore Petraeus’s explanation that the surge strategy itself draws more terrorists and insurgents into confrontation, and this naturally produces statistical increases in casualties on both sides in the short term. They also choose to ignore Petraeus’s reports that the Iraqi Army has increased its enrollment by 20,000 men so far this year and it continues to grow steadily. It now stands at approximately 120,000-150,000 and is becoming better trained, better equipped, and more capable with each passing month. More importantly, residents in some provinces, Sunni and Shia, have risen to take up arms against al Qaeda, recognizing the terrorist group as their common enemy. The result has been a complete retreat of al Qaeda from those provinces. These are the facts of the surge strategy thus far, but Reid and Pelosi want no silver linings found in their clouds. From a letter to the White House written jointly by Reid and Pelosi:

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

The defeatist attitudes displayed by our Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are in starkly embarrassing contrast with the optimism and faith in democracy displayed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. I have recently been reading Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches, particularly those speeches he delivered personally or via radio to the citizens and government of the United States from 1940 until the attack on Pearl Harbor. In every speech he patiently and graciously attempted to convince the American people that their interests were tied to Britain’s and to join directly in the battle to preserve freedom in Europe rather than remain entrenched in isolationism. The tone of those speeches, in trying to convince America to join a war that would surely engulf it eventually, was eerily reminiscent of Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s current pleas for America to stand firmly by its new democratic ally in a war for freedom already in progress.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal contained a column penned by Prime Minister Al-Maliki entitled, “Our Common Struggle,” in which the Iraqi leader offered an eloquent appeal for America’s steadfastness and patience, lacing his arguments with historical precedent and providing an internal audit of the current conditions in Iraq. It should be required reading for all members of Congress, all members of the media, and all Americans who insist that Iraq is a “quagmire,” “failure,” or that “the war is lost.”

Here are some of the highlights from the Prime Minister’s OpinionJournal piece, but I recommend reading it in its entirety:

Under the Baath [Saddam] tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty....

….War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America's way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

….Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq's history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government….We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs....

…We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

“The war is lost,” “failure,” “little impact,” “has not enhanced.” Reid and Pelosi could use optimism and spine transplants. Iraq’s Prime Minister would be a highly appropriate donor.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Iraq War Troop Surge Diplomacy Iraqi Democracy Quagmire David Petraeus Rebuilding Iraq

Truman Best Expressed Bush's Iraq Vision

Critics of the Bush administration in both parties argue that the president has done a poor job of explaining to the American people what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, why it is necessary, and how much sacrifice might be required to achieve victory and preserve Iraqi democracy. The president and his cabinet members have certainly made plenty of speeches in which these questions are superficially addressed, but it is clear that either through selective media coverage or a national epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder, Americans, particularly the anti-war Democrats, continually fail to grasp what is at stake in Iraq. President Bush is a plain-speaking man, but his speech writers have done him an enormous disservice by shunning Truman-like bluntness for nuanced platitudes that lost their effectiveness immediately after the president’s initial war address to the nation in 2003. This practice has only worsened as the president has sought to explain why America must continue in Iraq and why setting timetables for withdrawal is a dangerous idea. Phrases such as “embolden our enemies” and “fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them here” are true, but one can only use them so many times before repetition renders them rote and predictable.

It’s not as if the White House speech writers were lacking available material from which to draw inspiration or to be used as templates. Unfortunately, they overlooked a speech delivered by the plainest of plain-speaking presidents, Harry Truman to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947. President Truman had received urgent pleading requests from Greece and Turkey for military and economic assistance in the face of Soviet aggression and internal chaos and terrorism. The free governments of both nations faced overthrow by radicals (communists), and Britain, ravaged by World War II, simply lacked sufficient resources to support either nation. Truman came to the realization that if democratically elected governments in Greece and Turkey were to survive, and the peoples of those nations to remain free, America had to come to their rescue, with or without UN assistance. The similarities to the situations in Greece and Turkey and the status of Iraq are remarkably clear. President Bush’s speechwriters should have read Truman’s address to Congress in which he established what became the Truman Doctrine and substituted “Greece” or “Turkey” with “Iraq.” Had they done so, they would have discovered that the best explanation for why we must win in Iraq was offered in 1947 in far more bluntly eloquent language than any set forth by President Bush.

The Truman Doctrine address to Congress requested $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. I invite readers to substitute “Greece,” “Greek,” or “Turkey” with “Iraq” or “Iraqi.” If readers will do this, they will be armed with the most effectively communicated verbal defense of America’s continued engagement in Iraq. Of particular note, you will observe that both Greece and Turkey faced internal terrorism and concerted efforts to discredit and destroy their elected governments. Iraq faces those same perils and has pleaded for our continued support, but no one in 1947 claimed that Greece and Turkey were embroiled in “civil wars” and neither is Iraq today a civil war despite Democratic claims to the contrary. I want to draw out one sentence in case readers do not take the time to read the address; “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." That policy fits precisely what is occurring in Iraq.

And now, by substituting "Iraq" for "Greece" or "Turkey," travel back in time to 1947, when Truman explained, appropriately for this Memorial Day weekend, why we fight:

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:

The gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before a joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are involved.

One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. The United States has received from the Greek government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance. Preliminary reports from the American economic mission now in Greece and reports from the American ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek government that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation.

I do not believe that the American people and the Congress wish to turn a deaf ear to the appeal of the Greek government.

Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace-loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.

When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five percent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings.

As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible.

Greece is today without funds to finance the importation of those goods which are essential to bare subsistence. Under these circumstances the people of Greece cannot make progress in solving their problems of reconstruction. Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel and seeds. These are indispensable for the subsistence of its people and are obtainable only from abroad. Greece must have help to import the goods necessary to restore internal order and security, so essential for economic and political recovery.

The Greek government has also asked for the assistance of experienced American administrators, economists and technicians to insure that the financial and other aid given to Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy and in improving its public administration.

The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A commission appointed by the United Nations Security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia on the other.

Meanwhile, the Greek government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy.
The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid, but these are inadequate.

There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn.

No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek government.

The British government, which has been helping Greece, can give no further financial or economic aid after March 31. Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.

We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis. But the situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.

It is important to note that the Greek government has asked for our aid in utilizing effectively the financial and other assistance we may give to Greece, and in improving its public administration. It is of the utmost importance that we supervise the use of any funds made available to Greece; in such a manner that each dollar spent will count toward making Greece self-supporting, and will help to build an economy in which a healthy democracy can flourish.

No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. The government of Greece is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents 85 percent of the members of the Greek Parliament who were chosen in an election last year. Foreign observers, including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the Greek people.

The Greek government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States condones everything that the Greek government has done or will do. We have condemned in the past, and we condemn now, extremist measures of the right or the left. We have in the past advised tolerance, and we advise tolerance now.

Greece's neighbor, Turkey, also deserves our attention.

The future of Turkey as an independent and economically sound state is clearly no less important to the freedom-loving peoples of the world than the future of Greece. The circumstances in which Turkey finds itself today are considerably different from those of Greece. Turkey has been spared the disasters that have beset Greece. And during the war, the United States and Great Britain furnished Turkey with material aid.

Nevertheless, Turkey now needs our support.

Since the war Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of effecting that modernization necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.

That integrity is essential to the preservation of order in the Middle East.

The British government has informed us that, owing to its own difficulties, it can no longer extend financial or economic aid to Turkey.

As in the case of Greece, if Turkey is to have the assistance it needs, the United States must supply it. We are the only country able to provide that help.

I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time.

One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion. This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, upon other nations.

To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations. The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had totalitarian regimes forced upon them against their will. The government of the United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other countries there have been similar developments.

At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.

One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections and the suppression of personal freedoms.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.

Moreover, the disappearance of Greece as an independent state would have a profound effect upon those countries in Europe whose peoples are struggling against great difficulties to maintain their freedoms and their independence while they repair the damages of war.

It would be an unspeakable tragedy if these countries, which have struggled so long against overwhelming odds, should lose that victory for which they sacrificed so much. Collapse of free institutions and loss of independence would be disastrous not only for them but for the world. Discouragement and possibly failure would quickly be the lot of neighboring peoples striving to maintain their freedom and independence.

Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.

We must take immediate and resolute action.

I therefore ask the Congress to provide authority for assistance to Greece and Turkey in the amount of $400 million for the period ending June 30, 1948. In requesting these funds, I have taken into consideration the maximum amount of relief assistance which would be furnished to Greece out of the $350 million which I recently requested that the Congress authorize for the prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war.

In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such financial and material assistance as may be furnished. I recommend that authority also be provided for the instruction and training of selected Greek and Turkish personnel.

Finally, I ask that the Congress provide authority which will permit the speediest and most effective use, in terms of needed commodities, supplies and equipment, of such funds as may be authorized.

If further funds, or further authority, should be needed for purposes indicated in this message, I shall not hesitate to bring the situation before the Congress. On this subject the executive and legislative branches of the government must work together.

This is a serious course upon which we embark.

I would not recommend it except that the alternative is much more serious. The United States contributed $341 billion toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world freedom and world peace.

The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than 1 tenth of 1 percent of this investment. It is only common sense that we should safeguard this investment and make sure that it was not in vain.

The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.

If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.

Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.

I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.

The Republican Congress in 1947 united with Democrat Truman and approved the strategy and its accompanying funding, and the course of history for Greece and Turkey remained one of freedom and self-determination. Our current Congress has the same responsibility and opportunity with Iraq. Will they rise to the occasion? Their behavior since the November 2006 elections inspires little confidence.

Are Iraqis Worth It? Hanson Nails Issue

We daily scour the blogosphere and news columns for stories or opinions that strike a chord within us, that indicate the author is a kindred spirit, that demonstrate that someone else out there “gets it” when it comes to the important issues of our time. Today while reading National Review Online I read an article by an author I read with regularity and had such an experience. Even before this week, with the passage in the House and Senate of the Iraq White Flag Surrender Turn Tail and Flee Beginning October 1st Bill dominating the headlines, I wrote about the real reason why some Americans are not willing to sacrifice long and hard for the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and today prominent author and NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson took up this issue in a brilliantly written and bluntly articulated article titled, “Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak.”

Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:

But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery….

But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:

There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.

In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?

Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.

Iran's Bribery Worse Than Bombs

Iran is at war with the United States, allied forces, and the Iraqi government. What other appropriate term could be applied when a nation funds, trains, equips, and transports terrorist insurgents into Iraq to wage war against U.S. and allied troops? How could it be considered anything short of war when a nation seizes 15 members of an allied naval crew well within Iraqi sovereign territorial waters and holds them hostage? Does a nation engage in an act of war against the entire world when it dismissively ignores UN WMD non-proliferation policies and sanctions by blindly pursuing production of nuclear weapons? Is it not war when one nation blatantly bribes elected officials of another nation with the expressed intention of destroying a democratically elected government before it can adequately defend itself?

When taken in the aggregate, all of these behaviors by the current Iranian regime constitute an undeclared, but all too real war against America, Iraq, and those who fight for the democratically elected Iraqi government. The last of the insidiously aggressive acts listed above was exposed today in an exclusive article by New York Sun reporter Eli Lake, submitted from Baghdad. War critics like to evoke emotion and false imagery by using terms such as “quagmire” and “civil war” to describe the war in Iraq and why we should abandon it. These politically opportunistic terms, however, were discredited by a courageous member of Iraq’s democratically elected parliament, Mithal al-Alusi.

Al-Alusi, a father of two sons killed by terrorists in Iraq in 2005, went on record with Lake to explain the intimate inner conflicts occurring in Iraq, and to identify a major contributor to the unrest in Iraq: Iran. American officials have long complained of Iranian interference in Iraq, most notably through pouring funds, arms, and terrorists into Iraq. Al-Alusi, however, specifically identified a high level Iranian diplomat engaged in a less explosive, but no less lethal, effort to undermine the Iraqi government.

According to al-Alusi, Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq, Hassam Kazemi Qomi, offered him large sums of cash through an intermediary and invited al-Alusi to visit Tehran and meet with President Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs. Al-Alusi told Lake that such offers have been made to most of the members of the Iraqi parliament, but he was the first elected official to speak publicly about Iran’s effort to destroy the fledgling democracy or so thoroughly corrupt it through bribery that it would function as an Iranian puppet. From the NY Sun exclusive:

The fact that Iran would be interested in buying Mr. al-Alusi and his single vote in parliament is in itself a sign of both this politician's growing appeal to Iraqis and the Iranian strategy to diversify their influence to include politicians outside the Shiite bloc of religious parties that wield a narrow majority in the parliament.

Mr. al-Alusi said yesterday that he believed the soft influence of Iranians through bribes and economic leverage is even more dangerous than the role the Islamic Republic plays in facilitating and supporting the terrorists here.

And in this respect Mr. al-Alusi is not alone. A senior Iraqi minister here last week, who asked to speak anonymously, said that it is well known that Iranians are paying off both Sunni and Shiite legislators. "Any Iraqi who takes this money should be ashamed, but many are taking it," the minister said.

War critics have repeatedly expressed “no confidence votes” against President Bush and the Iraqi government, and have stated their belief that the Iraqis are incapable of sustaining a democracy. If decisive actions are not taken against Iranian interference in Iraq, these critics will be proven right but not because Iraqis were incapable. The Iraqi democracy will dissolve due to Iran’s overt and, until now, covert warfare against it. It has become clear that victory in Iraq cannot be achieved without some form of decisive containment of Iran’s aggressive actions in Iraq.

Brave parliamentarians such as al-Alusi are a rarity, and many will take the money offered by Tehran. America must not allow this Middle Eastern democracy, purchased as it was with American, allied, and Iraqi blood, to devolve into an Iranian puppet purchased by high level diplomatic bribery. Congress incessantly complains about “special interest groups” wielding too much influence on government. Now it must take action to protect the Iraqi government from Iran, the world’s most prolific terrorist special interest group.