Anti-Climacus

WELL: It occurs to me that there's something odd in an argument like this:

"Here's what I would like those very people to tell me: What do you expect to happen if the coalition forces just up and left Iraq right now? Don't bother straining yourself thinking about it; I know it's hard for you to see past your own needs. I'll tell you what will happen.

Iraq would revert back to a rogue nation. Any Iraqis who worked for or sided with the coalition will be killed. Possibly tortured, first. Their families will be killed. The schools and hospitals that have been built in the past year will become storage rooms for weapons and meeting places for terrorists. The women who are enjoying their new found freedom to have careers and come out from under their veils will once again be sentenced to house duty; that is, staying home, staying veiled, being treated as as an object of disdain by men more powerful than them. The children who were finally learning something besides the doctrines of Saddam will have their new textbooks ripped from them. The country once again will be ruled by fear and wracked with violence. In other words, Iraq will go back to being what it was in March of 2003: A place of terror, corruption, torture, death and oppression where only those who are beholden to evilness will rule. All hopes of democracy and freedom will be crushed. Those dreams of a constitution, good schools, a bright future - they will all be shot down. It will be as if we gave them hope and then pulled it out from under them."

Mostly because it requires believing the following two things: 1. Iraqis are completely capable of self-government (as soon as this year's elections) but 2. Were it not for our presence, things would go to hell in a handbasket. Now, were I one of those lefty-types, I'd say this qualified as a contradiction (at best): you want us to believe Iraqis are simultaneously angels and devils, whichever you find to be more convenient at the moment.

(of course, arguing this has an unfortunate entailment for pro-democracy leftists, because you're contending that if democracy happens and the US stays, it was only the threat of violence that scared them straight; if the US goes and democracy fails, then it just goes to show the entire idea of bringing democracy to them was fatally flawed. Either version requires believing that democracy can't happen in a state that doesn't already have it unless there's 100% support.)

The response is a story about elites and masses. The people who are naturally disposed to have power in a between-governments Iraq are the people who have an interest in keeping any other form of government from taking power. The masses are either marginalized out of the process or hedging their bets by supporting the elites (the US will forgive people who have seen the light, should things go America's way; Iraqi warlords will not be so forgiving). Consequently, it's not contradictory to believe that there are relevant contingents in the population which are 'good' and 'bad' --it should be expected.