[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: American Appeasement in Iraq

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

American Appeasement in Iraq

The way to avoid the dreaded "quagmire" is to stop apologizing for our presence in Iraq, 
and to start forcefully asserting our principle of individual freedom

By Peter Schwartz

Voices on the left argue that Iraq will become a "quagmire" because of U.S. "arrogance" 
and "unilateralism." They are actually half-right: disaster may indeed be looming--but 
only because of a *lack* of self-assertiveness by the United States. We are inviting 
failure in Iraq, and in our overall war on terrorism, by mounting a campaign that is 
hopelessly apologetic and appeasing.

The Iraqis have a long history of despotism. But instead of forcefully changing their 
political system, so that it no longer threatens the rights of anyone--Iraqi or American-
-we are deferentially asking the Iraqis for permission to proceed. Afraid to offend 
them, we are reluctant to defend our interests and to uphold our values.

For example, we did not appoint the members of Iraq's Governing Council based on their 
commitment to freedom; instead, we sought ethnic and religious "diversity" in order to 
placate the various tribal and political factions that dominate Iraq. Among the 25 
members are: the secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party; the founder of the Kurdish 
Socialist Party; a member of Iraq's Hezbollah; and a leader of the Supreme Council for 
the Islamic Revolution--a group, funded by and partly founded by Iran, advocating an 
Islamic theocracy.

Is this the assemblage that is going to create a free Iraq?

To assuage the United Nations, we are asking for its aid in drafting a new constitution 
for Iraq. Is it conceivable that this organization--which helped keep Saddam Hussein in 
power and whose membership includes the world's bloodiest tyrants--can produce an 
ideological road map for freedom?

On the military front, our soldiers face continuing attacks in Iraq, but political 
considerations prevent us from trying to fully disarm the populace. Attendees at 
funerals and weddings regularly fire automatic weapons, as their means of "emotional 
expression." Our military planners apparently believe that a methodical house-to-house 
search for guns in Iraq would be too "intrusive."

We are still at war, yet we allow Iraqis to engage in public demonstrations--again, with 
automatic weapons in hand--in support of Hussein. Some openly cheer from the roadside as 
deadly remote-controlled bombs are detonated against our military. None are arrested or 
stopped, presumably because we don't want to be regarded as overly assertive.

This same, self-effacing policy is being practiced in Afghanistan, where the problem 
of "offended local sensibilities"--as a recent N.Y. Times article describes it--has led 
our policymakers to transform our soldiers into goodwill ambassadors, "whose focus is 
less on capturing terrorists than on winning public support."

Is it surprising that the Taliban now appears to be successfully regrouping?

In logic and in justice, there is only one means of "winning public support," in 
Afghanistan or Iraq: eradicating every trace of the former enslavers. If that is not 
sufficient, then the support is not worth gaining. Our only concern should be toward 
those who value freedom enough to recognize the inestimable value our troops have given 
them. As to all the others--they need not like us, only fear us.

In Iraq we started by apologizing for our presence, when our invading soldiers were 
ordered to jeopardize their lives rather than risk harming civilians or damaging 
mosques. We have deposed Hussein--but we are still apologizing. We are unwilling to ask 
Iraqis to bear the costs of their liberation. We are endorsing the very statism we are 
supposed to be overthrowing as we permit the Iraqi government to own the oil supplies 
and to remain in the coercive OPEC cartel. We are begging the United Nations to 
authorize multinational troops so that the American visibility will diminish. This 
conciliatory attitude only emboldens the enemy, thereby encouraging resistance and 
inviting a "quagmire."

Upon ousting the governments of Germany and Japan in World War II, we did not proceed on 
tiptoe. We did not express regret at having to stop traffic, search homes and shoot 
fleeing suspects. We were morally certain--certain that their system was wrong and ours 
right, certain that their system posed a threat to us and needed to be eliminated. As a 
result, the enemy was eventually demoralized, allowing freedom to take root. The 
identical approach should be adopted now.

In postwar Japan, it was Gen. Douglas MacArthur who unilaterally drafted a new 
constitution--over the objections of many Japanese--and who thus paved the way for a 
radical shift from tyranny to liberty. Emulating MacArthur, by imposing upon Iraq a U.S.-
written constitution that champions the principle of individual rights, would be an 
ideal means of asserting our interests.
________________________________________________________________________________
Peter Schwartz, editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-
Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand, is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand 
Institute (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of 
Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send comments to 
reaction at aynrand.org

Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to
media at aynrand.org with your publication's name and the expected date
of publication.
 
Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit
reply and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.