US pulling out of Iraqi cities - Iraqis - some - celebrate - what happens now? I tend to agree with Ricks who writes today that it's not a question of whether this evolution succeeds but rather of how quickly the nominal successes of the past year unravel. The surge worked, but probably in the same way a tourniquet works to stop bleeding - tourniquets don't heal wounds. The argument verges on a tautology - but, for tribal societies, whose problems are based on tribal conflicts, for these societies to evolve they must obviously move past tribalism but that only happens if substantial changes have altered the fundamental dynamics of the society. Is there any evidence of that happening or having happened in Iraq? Faint whispers possibly - possibly the beginnings of such, but nothing to convince one that the road ahead will be relatively smooth. If we go by the example of the West and express it as concisely as possible you get this formula: halting progress divided by years of war and upheaval leading to dynamic changes leading to the rise of capitalism, the subjugation of religion and the enshrining of private property, individual rights and representative government. Is there any reason to believe Iraq, or any other society of that ilk, is anywhere but at the beginning of that process?
Now I suppose that ultimately there's no irrefutable reason why the East, to give it a name, has to evolve the same way the West did - and indeed it may not - different factors are at play and I'm not scholar enough to do a comparative analysis - but I am saying that if the East does not follow in the footsteps of the West and does not adopt certain institutions and freedoms and cannot learn to abide change and is unable to abandon or move past the tribal comforts of an oppressive faith then whatever it becomes will not be our friend.
And so you have Iraq. I supported the war and, despite much evidence to the contrary, still believe it was probably the right option poorly enacted. One thing for sure, though, the East can either remain an enemy or not - to get the latter significant change is required - history teaches us change almost always involves conflict - change of course guarantees nothing other than the possibility of something better - but without that, what do you really have?
