Here is what I posted on that site:
Good mea culpa all around but wrong! Certainly those who supported the war early on (like myself) have to ask themselves whether this support was warranted. But an important question you do not ask is "what was the alternative and was the status quo desirable?" In my opinion, there were 2 assumptions made about invading Iraq which were fundamentaly flawed (and which explain the current situation). [By the way, these do not include the WMD connendrum..I believe that the WMDs existed and that they currently are in Syria and Lebanon). The first incorrect assumption is that Iraq would welcome democracy. Wrong. Like many Muslim counties, the fundamental political structure is tribal and as a result, the very concept of democracy is unpallatable. So we are effectively trying to build a structure which most Iraqis fundamentally reject. The second assumption is that the "moderates" among Islam would prevail over the extremists. Wrong again. The extremists are now so ingrained in the very fabric of so many Muslim communities that the moderates have been permanently silenced into implied acceptance through utter fear of death. This realization is also what explains why in the US and other Western countries, people ask "why are the moderate Muslims not speaking out agaisnt extremism?" I believe that many of these Muslim communities have passed the point of no return and that the extremists among Muslim have wrestled control of these communities. With Saudi money flowing into most mosques in order to ensure that only fundamentalist Imams have staying power, it will take less than a generation to turn most mainstream Islam away from "moderation". It is time we wake up to the fact that Islam, which has never been reformed the way Christianity has been, is an evangelical religion whose only purpose is the submission of all of Mankind by any mean, including death. Neither Christianity nor Judaism have anything akin to this very principle as their guiding principle. Ignoring this fact is why the war on terror is not making the progress that it should. We are burying our head in the sand pretenting that we are fighting a few bands of terrorists around the world. Wrong. We are fighting the vangard of militant Islam, which for the very first time has the money to purchase the weapons it needs to take on Western Civilization. We have made mistkes, unquestionably. But the mistakes we made were not the ones you identify. We have consistently underestimated the depth of penetration of extremism into mainstream Islam. And we have always refused to admit that we are at the begining of a clash of civilization which can only end with one civilization defeating the other. This very concept is just so foreign to the multicutural pabulum we have been fed over the last 50 years that we have simply refused to see what is now staring us in the eyes.
A very interesting link, for which many thanks. I was unaware of Staerk before this, but will bookmark his site. I admire this man's honesty, his capacity for reflection. And his humour:
"Warning! Objects in blogs are smaller than they appear."
Staerk is an honourable fellow, but all around his analysis seems weak to me.
Iraq will pay for the mistake of the war? If you took a poll of Iraqis today, at least 80% of them would still support the war to get rid of Saddam. They may not be happy with the US on all things, but on this basic point - the essential point of the war - they are in agreement with what the coalition did. Staerk seems to believe all would be better with Saddam there. Let's see, we would then have: a genocidal psychopath in charge of Iraq; a collapse of UN sanctions; oil revenue flowing to Saddam; an arms race between Iran and Iraq (two regimes that hate the west); and a reinforcement of totalitarians and religious fanatics throughout the ME; collapse of American and Western credibility in the ME (Saddam would have won).
Even with all the problems in the region and the tough fight against jihadis and mass murderes, we are still in a better position today than under that scenario.
Iraq today is violent and unsettled - but there is hope. Under Saddam it was violent and seething beneath the surface - and it was a land of no hope and the peace of the grave.
They vote, Lebanon watches, wants, and starts to go to the mats.
Kuwait takes a step back from sharia.
Egypt starts discussing whether FGM is acceptable and, if I read the article correctly, accepts banks paying interest is OK.
Iraqis come up w/a plan to share the wealth, the OPEC countries ask, "Where's mine?"
The Palis have their own state, they just can't run it.
It took us 80 years to settle the question, and we're still dealing w/the fallout, yet they're supposed to get it in 4.
Took us 9 to win in Nam - when Nike went in, took 31 years to formalize it w/the trade agreement.
Of course, we also weren't hard enough.
"Rehabilitated" war-blogger Bjorn Staerk has been doing this for what, one or two years now? He's become the Norwegian version of Andrew Sullivan.
Isn't it a bit early to be writing the epitaph for democracy in Iraq?
Here's Andrew from Ace of Spades responding to a similar piece from Staerk back in September. [External Link]
I think he nails it here in a nutshell:
"Actually, Bjorn, I don't think you are [a defeatist]. A defeatist doesn't necessarily lack the will to fight. You're something worse: a passivist. While a defeatist worries that he might lose, you've decided that there's not even going to be a contest. You're proposing we stand there and take it [terrorism] on the chin without lifting a finger."