Yon: In God We Trust Vs. Allah u Akbar

Michael Yon with an interesting narrative of a meeting between US and Iraqi forces and former insurgent leaders on trying to cobble together some rules of the road. h/t Belmont Club

An Iraqi Colonel was generous enough to offer that he believed it to be just a mistake that “God is Great” was left off the flag that was used on the slides. But the Iraqis all agreed that nobody was going to sign anything that displayed an Iraqi flag without the phrase “God is Great.”

This might seem ominous to us. “Allah u Akbar!” are, after all, words that we have become accustomed to hearing when someone is doing something bad, like burning an American flag, or blowing up Americans. But these issues are more like the intense legal and media battles over the words “In God We Trust” on the money in our pockets, or the ongoing furor in some sectors over the phrase “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible . . . ” in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Not to mention the dust storms kicked up by the Pledge itself.)

Seeing “God is Great” written on the Iraqi flag might provoke some to protest “Why did we come here just to stand up a country who would write such things on their flag?” But I sat there in that meeting, which was completely civil and professional, and I thought about another flag, the one flying over South Carolina. Some people call that flag “heritage,” while others call it “hateful,” “painful” and “demeaning.” And today in that meeting, I thought about the descendants of slaves who are now top military commanders in the American Army, and in that moment I knew that Iraq could make it.

Comments

[Rich Casebolt]

In the face of all the closet racists who declared that Iraqis were incapable of rights-respecting governance ...

... if we could overcome, so can the Iraqi people.

[bloodrage bob]

OTOH, on behalf of all us 'closet racists' who doubted that iraq would take to democracy well, let it be pointed out:

* iraq has about a 5000-year-uninterrupted history of being non-democratic. from the beginning of recorded history, iraq and surrounding environs has *always* been "governed" by the strongest guy with the most guns/weapons/men at his command. on the rare occasions that *wasn't* the operating imperative, obedience to the family/tribe/clan strongman WAS.

*AAAnd, as opposed to japan, where essentially the same conditions applied, iraq is under the sway of a brutal pseudoreligion that preaches 1) absolute obedience to the guy with the most guns; 2) that democracy - the will of the people - is not merely misguided and wrong, it's an actual **offense against god**. "you're poor and oppressed because that's how god wants it!" ;3) personal honor is an alien concept, and smiling to the americans and telling them whatever they want to hear while planning attacks against them (because you're sure they won't kill your family in reprisal) is an a-ok thing to do.

*lastly, as opposed to iraq, japan was introduced to democracy under direct american supervision (meaning: at gunpoint) over a period of...what?...decades? to satisfy the liberal wusses, the iraqis were thrown into the ring of democracy unsupervised and without a map in...what? 20 minutes?

yeah, no WONDER those closet racists predicted trouble. clearly, they're despicable racists. who no doubt beat their wives, too. or maybe NOT. MAYBE they're people who think with their actual *brains*, as opposed to using their hopes & wishes, as the namecallers and secret genius george w. bush do. yes, democratizing iraq CAN be done. but no, it CAN'T be done in 2 years.

one of the hallmarks of conservatism is supposed to be recognition of reality. no matter how unpopular, or non-PC that reality might be. calling those people "racists" in lieu of an actual argument is typically a hallmark of liberal political "thought".

i'm just sayin'.

[Rich Casebolt]

Bob ... the "brains" you refer to, in their smug "realism" wouldn't have even given Iraq the chance to implement rights-respecting governance.

And yes, too many of them flat-out stated that the Iraqis were incapable of rights-respecting governance.

However the implementation of rights-respecting governance is the most reliable way available to immunize Iraq from a return to totalitarian rule.

It is true wisdom, to look beyond the conventional wisdom, see the opportunites for real, positive, lasting change missed by the "conventional", and act to implement them. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who once stated that all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.

Yes, we were too optimistic about how fast this can be implemented ... but your side of the debate missed the facts that (1) it can be implemented, and (2) implementing rights-respecting governance in Iraq.

Fortunately, an unreasonable man named George didn't listen to y'all.

[Rich Casebolt]

(2) above should read:

implementing rights-respecting governance in Iraq is the best way to permanently deny that nation, its resources, and its people to the enemy.