Victory in Iraq: 300 Tyrants

As I read the blogs of men and women who are there in uniform, those who are Iraqis and those who are reporters, I am reminded of that section of the Declaration of Independence and a phrase from "the Patriot" with Mel Gibson. In the scene, the Virginia House of Commons is discussing joining the revolution and the benefits. Gibson's character asked a salient question, "Why should I trade a single tyrant 3000 miles away for 300 tyrants a mile away?"

In Iraq, this question remains ever present in the current political and security situation. Even as Al Qaida is rooted out and some of the worst of the Mahdi death squads with them, the reality of daily living in Iraq is the reality of "300 tyrants". Iraq is broken politically and socially. Every neighborhood now has a "petty tyrant". The tyrant is no longer in a palace in Baghdad or the provincial capital, but may live on the same street as the people they say they protect.

Some, of course, may have the vested interest of their community in their minds and work towards that. However, the power of weapons and money, the absolute power, as history shows, is an absolutely corrupting power. In a nation where corruption has been the overweening political and governing power for centuries, it is little wonder that it would continue so today.

The difference is, once upon a time, that corruption was institutionalized. They knew what to expect from the corrupt. They knew who the corrupt were. As our forefathers once wrote, people are more likely to suffer it than to change it because it is known and they find ways to work around it. It is why the lament is so often heard from Iraqis that they preferred the security under Saddam. Democracy and freedom is actually one of the least "secure" methods of governing. It is easier to know the mind of and react to a single tyrant than to know the minds of hundreds or thousands. It is a wonder it is so sought after and hard to manage.

The reason it has been difficult to define "victory" in Iraq is because we can win the shooting war, but the war to create a real democracy is just beginning. Those who were the oppressed are now the oppressors. Learning the difference between real freedom, democracy and sharing power and the freedom to become tyrants, to become what they beheld for so long, will be much more difficult. Learning to govern in the name of the people instead of the name of one tyrant or another will take years if not decades. It is this that will decide the "other victory" in Iraq: democracy and freedom over tyranny.

That is something that we can help along and have by working to set up local governance, guide council meetings, work towards local and provincial elections, etc. The central government can help this along by working towards equitable economic and power sharing with the provinces as well as finalizing any De-ba'athification. But, real reconciliation will not happen at the parliamentary level until the citizens on the street are reconciled to the fact that they must live in a country and share all things, including power, with millions of others.

Right now, the citizenry is broken into armed enclaves that have been "purged" of any of the "others". It was largely a defense mechanism due to the horrific effects of internal guerrilla war. We should not be shocked that it occurred. Here in the United States, after 9/11, it was the thing that we most feared would happen. People talked about WWII and the internment of the Japanese. People openly discussed the "question" of our "Muslim population".

In some respects, we are not all that different. We were only lucky enough to have an historical example to remind us of the cost of segregation, a long history of living in the "melting pot", a government that was strong enough to remind us of what we are and powerful enough to enforce it. A government that reflected our people and our ideas. Of course, it did not act without our consent nor without a true understanding of our minds. We may have feared the possibilities of more attacks, but we feared what segregation of our population would make us more. We feared becoming what the enemy wanted us to be to strengthen their claims. So, we rejected it and rather quickly.

In Iraq, the government does reflect its polity. It is segregated, sectarian and weak. Not because the government is, but because the people are. Had we suffered the same, we cannot say we would not have become the same. Our own reconciliations after the Revolution and Civil War were not so easy to come by either. We even impeached a president over it.

Whether Maliki remains in power is yet to be seen. Whether Iraq is partitioned is not up to us, but to the Iraqis. Both of these will depend on the people of Iraq to make that decision. That is democracy and that is the real hope of Iraq.

Maliki losing power may not be the worst thing that happens. Parliament collapsing and requiring new elections is not the worst thing that could happen. Even new elections at the point of the gun with petty tyrants winning elections is not the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen is that Iraqis could reject reconciliation and fall into an all out civil war, more horrific than that which we have witnessed. The worst thing that could happen is that they could reject democracy all together.

Against the fears of this unknown is the real work of both US forces and Iraqis who are in little towns and big cities like Ramadi, working together and learning what government "for the people and by the people" really means. It is the bulwark that shores up the final victory. US, Coalition and many more Iraqis have shed their blood to make that happen. Something that is paid for so dearly is not so easily given up.

There in may be contained the hope of the final victory.

As the events on the ground have overtaken our own politics, so do the events on the ground in Iraq overtake their own politicians. Some day in the future, the "petty tyrants" will be subsumed by the masses. Parliament will act on the will of the people. It will remember that its people are armed and able to change it at any time. That fear is not entirely a bad thing.

It is unlikely that the United States will be viewed as a "liberating hero" by the mass of Iraqis. Particularly as it seems that most do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. Before the United States came, they say they lived in peace and harmony as Iraqis, not as "others". That is true, but also a delusion because they were not held together by common understanding and respect, but by a common fear. That which brought the war already existed behind the tyranny of the one.

We will not change that. It may not even be necessary or desirable. A common complaint can join people just as well as a common enemy. However, for some, regardless of the view of our government, a US Army Sergeant or a Marine Lieutenant will be remembered because he shed his blood, sweat and tears with them; because she tended their wounds; because she or he taught them about democracy. The individuals will be the heroes. They will be the inoculation against decades of petty tyrannies.

It is not the United States government nor President Bush nor Gen. Petraeus who wins the final war. It will be the people from Canton, Ohio and Wellsville, Kansas or upstate New York, Prague, and Sydney with the people from Ramadi, Husbayeh, Samawah, Irbil and Suleiman.

That is who wins the wars in a democracy.

Sic Semper Tyrannis