For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose
By DAVID BROOKS / NY Times / Published: May 11, 2004
This has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who support
the war in Iraq. The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world
have not yet come true. The warnings others made about the fractious state
of post-Saddam society have.
It's still too soon to declare the Iraq mission a failure. Some of the best
reporting out of Iraq suggests that many Iraqis have stared into the abyss
of what their
country could become and have decided to work with renewed vigor toward the
democracy that both we and they want.
Nonetheless, it's not too early to begin thinking about what was clearly an
intellectual failure. There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences
of our
power. There was a failure to anticipate the response our power would have
on the people we sought to liberate. They resent us for our power and at the
same
time expect us to be capable of everything. There was a failure to understand
the effect our power would have on other people around the world. We were so
sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or
later, everybody else would see that as well. Far from being blinded by greed,
we were
blinded by idealism.
Just after World War II, there were Americans who were astute students
of the nature and consequences of American power. America's midcentury
leaders — politicians
like F.D.R. and Harry Truman, as well as public intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr
and James Burnham — had seen American might liberate death camps.
They had also seen Americans commit wartime atrocities that surpass
those at Abu
Ghraib.
These midcentury leaders were idealists, but they were rugged idealists, because
they combined a cold-eyed view of reality with a warm self-confidence in their
ability to do history-changing good.
They took a tragically ironic view of their situation. They understood that
we can't defeat ruthless enemies without wielding power. But we can't wield
power
without sometimes being corrupted by it. Therefore, we can't do good without
losing our innocence.
History had assigned them a dirty job: taking morally hazardous action. They
did not try to escape, but they did not expect sainthood.
That rugged idealism looks appealing today. We went into Iraq with what, in
retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam,
establish democracy
and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally
admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness.
As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist,
were
bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out
Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact
that they
had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis
need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over
Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us. If the future textbooks
of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned
in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the
American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to
succeed in
Iraq, we have to lose.
That means the good Iraqis, the ones who support democracy, have to have a
forum in which they can defy us. If the insurgents are the only anti-Americans,
then
there will always be a soft spot for them in the hearts of Iraqi patriots.
That forum is an election campaign. There would be significant risks involved
in moving the Iraq elections up to this fall. Parties might use their militias
to coerce votes. But Iraqis have to see their candidates and themselves standing
up with speeches and ideas, not just with R.P.G.'s. The insurgency would come
to look anti-democratic, which would be seen to be bad, not just anti-American,
which is seen to be good.
If the Iraqis do campaign this fall, then at their rallies they will jeer at
us. We will still be hated around the world. But we will have succeeded in
doing what we set out to do.
And we will have learned about the irony of our situation.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Editorial note from Wisdom and Courage: It seems paradoxical that we must lose in order to win. However, W. Timothy Gallwey, an astute philosopher and writer, argues in his numerous "Inner Game" books, that losing is necessary for learning, growth and winning.