I know I have promised three articles, but something happened that was interesting enough I have to break from my planned schedule to add this short article.

I was talking to my wife after work one day, when she mentioned a co-worker's opinion on Iraq. It seems her co-worker had drawn the conclusion, promoted strongly by the anti-war crowd, that the Iraqis were "warlike" and "just not ready for democracy"*.

Of course, I could not let this pass. I started with my historical corrections, pointing out that the middle east had been no more subject to warfare than the rest of the globe for most of known history, that during the middle ages they would have, rightly, looked down on us as barbarians, while mesopotamia and the maghreb were preserving the Greek philosophical and scientific traditions, as well as maintaining libraries of classical books without any equal in the of the world. I did agree that in modern times the middle east had seen a severe decline, but that was largely the result of the chaos from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, followed by a combination of fundamentalist and socialist-nationalist governments. The people themselves, in general, were no more or less barbaric than those living in poor, tyrranical states elsewhere. Yes, Wahabbi extremism had infected some in recent decades, and that caused problems, but other militant philosophies, such as communism, religious fanaticism, ethnic bigotry, or racism filled a similar role elsewhere, so the middle east was not unique in having a minority of angry, irrational militants. It was no more violent or unprepared for democracy when we invaded than, say, Nicaragua in the late 20th century**.

None of that was what inspired me to write however. It was my wife's subsequent reply which seemed so important that I had to write about it.

Accepting, to a degree, that there was nothing inherently warlike about the middle east, my wife replied "But, if they want reforms, why aren't they helping us? Why don't they help drive out the terrorists?"

As I have said before, my wife is a normal person, not a political junkie like those on Townhall, so she gets most of her news from the media (though she favors Fox over the MSM), and doesn't obsessively follow political issues the way I do. So, in this case, her impression of the war in Iraq is probably characteristic of the man (or woman) on the street. What she understands is probably what the vast majority of Americans understand to be the truth. Which is why I was so shocked.

I admit, when we first arrived, after the initial euphoria of liberation wore off, the Iraqis, by and large, were pretty passive. They, quite sensibly, were reluctant to assist us, as they remembered all too clearly how we had abandoned the marsh Arabs and Kurds after the last war. But, to think today that the Iraqis are not helping us is surprising. But understandable. The media has completely blacked out progress in recruiting tribal leaders in Anbar, the assistance we receive from citizens throughout the nation, the declines in terrorist recruiting, the elimination of many top "insurgent" leaders, every bit of progress. Except for the running tally of US dead, the media seems to have no interest in news from Iraq. Unless they can attach a body, they can't report about it.

Of course, given all that, our progress is still slow, but I think it has nothing to do with an Iraqi incapacity for democracy or an inherent violence endemic to either middle eastern people or moslems. No, we are hampered by both the past and the future. As I said, the Iraqis remember how we abandoned them in the past, and so are still reluctant to join us in taking back their nation, for fear of us pulling up stakes and leaving them at the mercy of the terrorists, the Syrians, and the Iranians. In addition, they are aware that US governments are not like the dictators they see around them. Saddam could make a promise good for his lifetime, Bush cannot. They know that come January 2009, all promises are void, and the next office holder can still cut and run and leave them on their own, and the Democrats are giving every sign that this is their official position. That alone would be enough to make most Iraqis reluctant to provide us with aid, even without the memories of past abandonment. Both of these factors hamper our attempts to find Iraqi support, but they are also slowly waning. Provided we can manage to hold on the White House in 2008, I am sure that the Iraqis will begin to show a much greater willingness to side with the US, rather than sitting it out and waiting for one side or the other to win.

Of course, our chances of keeping a pro-defense president in the White House depend on people seeing that we need to, and, more importantly, that we can win in Iraq. But even there, we still have some hope, despite the MSM's news blackout.

Yes, my wife may have been unknowingly seen Iraq through the prism of MSM propaganda, as do most people I know, but once she heard the rest of the story, she could easily see that, far from a failure, Iraq had a lot of potential for success. So, rather than simply sit back and cry about MSM distortions, we would do much better to just bring the truth to those around us. It is not dramatic, it won't make headlines, but if each of us can bring the message to just one or two others, we can create a huge number of people not only aware of the truth, but also eager to hear more. If we can bring enough pressure for accurate reporting on Iraq, eventually the media will not be able to ignore it. Remember, though they may be incredibly biased, the media is also made up of businesses, and, whatever their bias, they cannot ignore the bottom line forever. Enough pressure to start reporting on successes in Iraq and they will have no choice; a few may hold out, but the bulk of the media will give in and follow the money.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in the multicultural, racially enlightened left pushing the line that Arab moslems are "warlike" and "not ready for Democracy"? What is someone in the 1980's had said South Africa was "not ready" for racial equality? Or souther blacks in the 1960's were "not ready" to vote? Or that the violence in Darfur is just because of an inherent "warlike nature" of the Sudanese? Yet somehow the left has no problem pushing the line that poor benighted Arabs aren't ready for democracy and were much better off being oppressed and massacred by Saddam, as they are just not worthy of any better government?
 
** I have one more question for those on the left pushing the "not ready for democracy" line. If the Iraqis are not ready to rule themselves, how can the same people explain pushing for an independent Palestinian state? The Palestinians are quite similar in ethnic and religious traditions to the Iraqis, so, if the Iraqis are not ready, how can the Palestinians be? Many have also worried about a supposed "terrorist haven" we created in Iraq. If they are so concerned about an imaginary terrorist haven in Iraq, how can they argue for creating a very real haven for terrorists in the west bank and Gaza strip?