Leftists Don't Listen

Lefties don't know Iraqis--who are far more optimistic about their country than anti-Bush Democrats and media, says Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin in today's WSJ:

The referendum capped a constitutional drafting process over which Western commentators and diplomats had been quick to panic. They misunderstand that with freedom comes politics. . .

Many U.S. policy makers worry that disgruntled Sunnis may turn to violence if their demands aren't met. But there is no evidence to support the conventional wisdom that insurgent violence is tied to the political process. Insurgents have not put forward any platform. By denying the legitimacy of the state, pan-Islamic rhetoric is a greater affront to Iraqi nationalism than the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil. . .

[T]he constitution represents the type of social and political compromise lacking through the Arab world. Members of the Constitutional Drafting Commission and Iraqi power brokers spent months debating and canvassing constituents. . . These Iraqi petitioners voiced interests and demands diametrically opposed to each other. Consensus was not always possible, but compromise was. As with the constitution, the nature of compromise is a result ideal to none but fair to all.

The referendum result again demonstrates that American policy- and opinion-makers are more pessimistic than are Iraqis. Part of the problem is that Pentagon officials and journalists alike chart Iraq's success through misguided metrics. Counting car bombs does not demonstrate progress or lack thereof in Iraq. Objective indicators show that Iraqis have confidence that did not exist prior to liberation.

According to Rubin, the Islamic Iraqi Diaspora is returning home and the Iraqi Dinar -- which floats freely on international currency markets -- has been stable (at around 1470 Dinars to the Dollar) since the January 30th interim elections. Put differently, Iraq is anything but a "failed state."

Publius Pundit's Robert Mayer is hopeful:

It’s tough building a free and democratic nation, and we all know that. But we’re keen on making it succeed and helping the Iraqis make it succeed. With preliminary results looking in favor of a YES vote, I’m ready to breathe my sigh of relief, wipe the sweat of my forehead, and get ready for the next big day. Whether the Iraqis voted YES or NO this time around, December 15 is the next election for either a new temporary National Assembly or a full four year parliament. These next few months will be ones to marvel at.

Also at Publius Pundit, Daniel Holt deconstructs the dour disconnect:

[W]hat motivates those Western individuals who are palpably hoping for a “No” vote? I assume they’re making the same mistake as the Sunni and foreign terrorists, believing that this would further the division of Iraq and demonstrate some mistake or other of the Bush administration. On this view, a refusal of the constitution would be a seemingly desirable thing to them, although in the end it would lead to a great deal of bloodshed. If I’m correct, that doesn’t say a lot for the current “anti-war” movement, aligning itself with a bunch of nutjob murderers, and regardless of intent promoting a view that’s hopeful for an extremely violent outcome.

MaxedOutMama correctly contends the left's Jihad wing doesn't value "the dignity and inherent rights of the individual human being." Dr. Sanity properly is dumbfounded by those who "blame [them]selves for [radical Islam's] barbaric and religiously-motivated behavior."¹ Pedro at the Quietist says Western radicals see Islamic radicals with "red" colored glasses:

For those without any sense of the importance of individual dignity and value, Marxism then becomes a panacea, the ultimate way to simplify the messy and crude 'capitalism' that is such a convenient and easy whipping boy.

It is absurd to witness leftist academics continue to insist that -- contrary to everything the Islamicist fundamentalists say about themselves, their goals, and their motives -- their REAL grievance has to do with economic injustice, defined (remarkably!) as exactly the kind of issues and concerns that leftist intellectuals discuss in faculty lounges. (What a coincidence!)

University of Western Ontario professor Salim Mansur concurs and reproaches ignorance of history, in Saturday's Toronto Sun:

[T]here are legions of Americans and Europeans, with supporters elsewhere in other continents, who are wilfully blind and deaf to the reality of radical Islam that Bush has sought to make plain in his public remarks.

They continue to insist that the violence of Muslim terrorists, despite being despicable, must yet be explained by reference to some "root causes" linked with the history of Western colonial imperialism.

Hence, these "useful idiots" (in Lenin's memorable phrase)² give pause to the vast majority of Muslims -- in particular those in North America and Europe -- whose silence in the face of evil feeds the bloodlust of Muslim terrorists.

Bush is right when he says the "murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century." It can only be met successfully, however, if we have learned sufficiently from 20th-century history.

Agreed.
________________________

¹ I recommend a Dr. Sanity post from July:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I no longer had that option.

² Dr. Mansur's "useful idiots" bin includes "British MP George Galloway and Michael Moore, the duplicitous American filmmaker."

Edited 5:15pm