Amid Liberal Screams, Iraqi Democracy Gleams
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (06/03/04)
UNTIL THE HOME of Iraqi National Congress director Ahmed Chalabi was raided by U.S. soldiers and Iraqi police, liberals hated him. They said he was a puppet of the Pentagon, that he fed the United States bad intelligence in order to promote war in Iraq, and that he was one of those dreaded ''neocons'' we keep hearing about.
''Neocon pundits,'' wrote David Olive in the Toronto Star, ''see Ahmed Chalabi as America's best hope in post-war Iraq. But to many insiders, he's the snake-oil salesman who seduced Bush's superhawks…''
Molly Ivins blamed Chalabi for the Abu Ghraib atrocities, which, in effect, blamed ''the neocons'' to whom she repeatedly referred. Then, utilizing the best of her terrific vocabulary, she asked, ''Could this entire disaster in Iraq be as simple as ‘We wuz conned?’ ''
Maureen Dowd acknowledged that Chalabi was the ''thief of Baghdad,'' but couldn’t quite contain her delight over the possibility that he may have ''obligingly conned the neocons.''
But then we raided Chalabi’s lavish Baghdad home, confiscating papers and computers, and accused him of spying for Iran. Suddenly, without any significant transition, liberals warmed up to him. They were shocked and dismayed that we would have the sheer indecency to seize the belongings of a man suspected of selling secrets to one of the Axis of Evil nations.
They still hated him, of course, but not with nearly the same vigor. He was a con artist, they insisted, but who could blame him?
Particularly representative of this viewpoint was a column in The Register (U.K.). ''Now Chalabi is in disgrace,'' wrote the author. ''His offices and house have been raided and his outfit cut off from the $340,000 per-month pension that the Pentagon brass had kept it on as a reward for lying to them.''
Prior to the espionage allegations, most people following the war believed that Chalabi was a potential choice for interim prime minister—the leader of Iraq following the June 30 transfer of power. He’d spent many years seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and may have played a critical role in developing our case against Iraq’s post-Gulf War weapons programs. Once our posture toward Chalabi changed, however, the prime minister position was up for grabs.
It didn’t last long. Within weeks of Chalabi’s nose-dive into the great chasm of failed politicos, Iraqi neurologist Iyad Alawi was chosen to serve as interim PM. Liberals are furious.
The gnashing of teeth at the New York Times office was especially loud. While their editorial on the subject of Alawi’s nomination contained several criticisms, the argument on which it was most unrelenting is that—of all things—Alawi is a Baathist. (The Times isn’t alone in this lie. Radio Australia ran an article on its website entitled ''United Nations accepts nomination of Baathist prime minister.'')
Obviously it wouldn’t quite behoove the United States to allow a Baathist to run Iraq. That’s why we’re not. Dr. Alawi broke with the Baath party in 1971 and fled to London. The notion that he’s still a Baathist, or that he’s been one in the last 30 years, is false.
The Times also wants you to believe that Alawi’s nomination ''raises questions about the authority of the United Nations' special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi.'' The Times didn’t say why.
Actually, the United Nations is smitten over Alawi. Kofi Annan’s spokesman, Fred Eckhard, said that Brahimi is ''ready to work with'' Alawi, and that Mr. Annan ''respects'' the nomination. For people who love the United Nations as much as liberals do, you’d think they’d be thrilled.
Another reason liberals should be pleased with Alawi is that, like them (sometimes), he doesn’t like Ahmed Chalabi. A bitter rivalry grew between them until they finally split up in the mid-1990s, when Alawi’s anti-Baathist group attempted to depose Saddam.
Though perhaps we don’t know enough about Alawi to predict his performance, liberals are acting positively batty. They wailed about Ahmed Chalabi, but then instantly sympathized with him as soon as we thought he was a spy. Then we got Alawi, who seems to fit all the qualifications, and liberals are grouchy again. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say they aren’t really interested in success in Iraq at all.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
