Yesterday's Attack

Several readers asked whether my optimism about midwifing Iraqi democracy was undermined by yesterday's deadly bombing in Mosul:

[An] explosion tore through a soft-sided mess tent where U.S. soldiers were eating lunch Tuesday at a military base near the northern city of Mosul, blowing a hole in the ceiling and leaving the floor littered with trays of food and puddles of blood. Officials said at least 20 [now 24] people were killed.

The New York Times instantly said the sky was falling:

The deadly attack on a United States military base in northern Iraq on Tuesday scrambled the Bush administration's hopes of showing progress toward stability there, while making clear that the war is creating a nasty array of problems for President Bush as he gears up for an ambitious second term.

Of course, the suicide bombing was hideous and uncivilized--but that doesn't mean America should abandon ship. The bombing brings terrorists no long-term advantage, as Belmont Club explains:

[T]he attack demonstrates assymetrical warfare in action. The enemy chose the weakest point he could find to attack; exploited the known limitations of the American response; and understood that he was to all intents and purposes exempted from the condemnation attendant to attacking the wounded and medical personnel. The chaplain and the medical personnel knew this and did not mill around expecting the Geneva Convention to protect them from those who have never heard of it, except as it applies to their own convenience. They knew the true face of the enemy; a face which bore no resemblance to the heroic countenance often presented by the media to the world.

Of the first three factors, the advantage of choosing the weakest point of attack has been a combatant's right from time immemorial. That is a purely military condition. But the enemy ability to exploit the limits of American response and attack medical personnel with public relations impunity are examples of military advantages that arise from political restraints. To the extent the blogosphere can dispel the propaganda cover willingly provided by the Left, people on the home front can help the soldiers in the field. It is necessary to link the war criminal behavior of the enemy with the studied blindness of "sophisticates" towards their most heinous crimes.

Alas the "sophisticates already surfaced--Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, host of the left-wing "Daily Kos" website blames it on Halliburton and headlined his coverage Bush destroys another 22 families. (Of course before the invasion, Markos never wrote anything like Saddam Dumps 300,000 Iraqis in Mass Graves--but never mind.)

Ignoring the hype, will Iraqis blame Bush? Not if the terrorists persist in inhuman tactics, says eyewitness Army Chaplin Lewis:

Any attack with casualties will naturally mean that eventually a very large number of care givers will be concentrated in one location. They took full advantage of that. In the middle of the mayhem the first mortar round hit about 100 to 200 meters away. Everyone started shouting to get the wounded into the hospital which is solid concrete and much safer than being in the open. Soon, the next mortar hit quite a bit closer than the first as they "walked" their rounds toward their intended target...us. Everyone began to rush toward the building. I stood at the door shoving as many people inside as I could. Just before heading in myself, the last one hit directly on top of the hospital. I was standing next to the building so was shielded from any flying shrapnel. In fact, the building, being built as a bunker took the hit with little effect. However, I couldn't have been more than 10 to 15 meters from the point of impact and brother did I feel the shock. That'll wake you up!

It sure would--except death-penalty opponent Europeans and the mainstream media, which routinely spikes stories of terrorist war crimes while exaggerating unsourced rumors of alleged American atrocities.

Prissy Euros and media bias notwithstanding, Iraqpundit says people are optimistic--and he's got evidence:

[O]rdinary Iraqis seem to be showing a great deal of resolve in the face of murder, and a great deal of commitment to the coming elections. I have discovered evidence of this in an obscure publication called The Washington Post, in a dusty edition that originally appeared on Monday, December 20, 2004. It may be unreasonable of me to expect the Post editors who wrote the "Impact" headline for the Tuesday Post to take into account what the paper had to say about Iraqis in the Monday Post (the same day these editors were composing the Tuesday front). I'll just reproduce the evidence here.

In a lengthy account of the weekend's horrific bombings, Post staffers and stringers gathered Iraqi reaction to these attempts to intimidate them. Here's one example:

• 'These attacks aim to destroy the country and the holy sites. This is terrorism against Shiites,' said Fadhil Salman, 41, the owner of the Ghufran Hotel in Najaf. 'They want to foil the elections, but this won't deter us.'


Here's another:


• 'God saved us,' said Abu Ahmed, an employee of Kawther Transportation Co., whose office was just 10 yards from the blast. He was cut by flying glass.
  'All the dead and wounded were civilians,' he said by telephone. 'But this won't stop the people from returning to their normal lives.'


Here's a third:


• 'I swear to God, even if they burn all the elections centers, we will still go and vote,' said Ali Waili, 29, a taxi driver reached by telephone in Karbala. 'We have been mistreated for a long time, we have been tortured for a long time.'

Are these Iraqis despondent?

Violence in Iraq is increasing lately, because the terrorists are afraid of democracy: "Retired Army Col. John Antal said he expects more spectacular attacks in the coming weeks, but mainly because 'the enemy is on the ropes and desperate to stop the elections.'" Tony Blair was right:

We stand on the side of the democrats against the terrorists. And so when people say to me, well look at the difficulties, look at the challenges - I say well what's the source of that challenge - the source of that challenge is a wicked, destructive attempt to stop this man, this lady, all these people from Iraq, who want to decide their own future in a democratic way, having that opportunity.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the same:

"The terrorists and Saddam loyalists are desperately seeking to derail the transition to democracy and freedom in Iraq. The enemies of freedom understand the stakes involved."

McClellan said that the Middle East had been long ignored while it became a breeding ground for terrorism. He believes that a free and peaceful Iraq will transform the region and be a major blow to terrorists' ambitions.

Despite Tuesday's setback, McClellan pointed out the progress that has been made in places like Fallujah and Najaf and Samarra and that 15 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are relatively calm and getting ready for the January 30 elections.

Today's left insists Iraq isn't worth the money or American lives. When, and why, did liberals lose faith in human rights and freedom, and ditch multi-culturism to become isolationists? I don't know, but modern Democrats are either dystopian populists or actual pacifists; neither would liberate and protect Iraq. Rather then sanction force, they whine:

It's easy to dispute, cluck and tsk-tsk from a well-worn easy chair. But real world problems, like radical Islam, require real world actions--including force. A decade of UN talk-talk, diplomatic isolation and trade sanctions failed to dislodge Saddam. Yet the anti-war left insisted inaction was preferable to, well, anything--or anything supported by the United States. That's when liberals transformed from merely silly to hallucinatory and amoral hypocrites.

By contrast, Iraqis are optimistic, as are Bush and Blair. Count me in. I'm proud America, Britain, Australia and others are fighting evil to bring freedom to the ~ 25 million human beings living in Iraq. It's achievable at a price worth paying. Despite suicide bombers, that's no hallucination.