My esteemed colleague, Donnel Jones, wrote a compelling piece yesterday regarding Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes’ concerns about Iraq. Pipes believes that the Bush administration’s plans for democratizing Iraq are “doomed to failure.” He advises that we leave Iraq as soon as possible after installing a “democratically-minded Iraqi strongman.” While I am a great admirer of Pipes’ work, I disagree with his thesis that democracy is impossible for Iraq. I would also qualify Pipes’ definition of “strongman.” It is too early for panic.

Pipes argues that we shouldn’t compare the current occupation of Iraq to the American reconstruction of post WWII Germany and Japan:

[T]he quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the post-war overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.

I’m not sure what point Pipes is trying to make. While I’m sure that Iraqis felt liberated, I’m confident that they also felt defeated. Coalition force was overwhelming and the defeat of Saddam’s forces was absolute, sending a resounding message to Iraqis and to the Arab/Muslim world. Is Iraqi “determination to shape their country's future” a bad thing? We’re there to help them create a brighter future. Must a country be utterly destroyed in order to change? No. Two cases immediately come to mind: Indonesia and Djibouti, two Muslim and democratic nations.

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, was ruled by the dictator General Suharto from 1965 to 1998. He was deposed from power by a massive public uprising. 500 people died during demonstrations against Suharto, but Indonesia was hardly “destroyed through years of all-out carnage.” Free parliamentary elections were held in 1999 and Megawati Sukarnoputri, a woman, became Indonesia’s president in 2001. Parliamentary elections were held last week, with 24 political parties participating. Indonesia has 147,219,531 registered voters out of a total population of 216,948,359.

Djibouti, a 94% Muslim and 6% Christian nation, chose President Ismael Omar Gelleh in multi-party elections in 1999. The country suffered a civil war starting in 1992. The warring parties signed peace accords in 1994 and 2000, and the country has been stable since. The French -- whom some Djiboutis may have seen as an external, “occupying” power -- helped bring the various factions together.

Need I also mention Turkey, the longest lasting Muslim democracy in history? What would Pipes say about the Muslim nation Afghanistan, where post-war reconstruction is going relatively well? My main point is that Muslim peoples can embrace democracy. Now back to the comparison of the current occupation of Iraq to the American occupation/reconstruction of post-WWII Germany and Japan.

Isn’t Pipes being a bit hasty in calling for a quick withdrawal from Iraq? We’ve been in Iraq for a year. The U.S. occupied Japan for seven years. American troops are still now stationed in Germany. The reconstruction of Germany after WWII was no cake-walk. At least 39 U.S. servicemen were killed by the Nazi "Werwolf" resistance movement in the first few months of the occupation:

And Werewolves weren’t the only problem. Violent crime, thievery and black-marketing were rampant. Germans incessantly complained to U.S. military officials about inadequate public safety. And these threats paled in comparison to the physical privations. Many feared masses of Germans would freeze or starve to death in the first winter after the war. To suggest that the first year of occupation was anything less than a dreadful, harrowing experience for many Germans is just bad history.

Yes, occupation was a tough business, but long-term it was a great success. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Things will get better if we hang in there and be patient. Leaving early means total disaster.

I was surprised to find that Pipes drew historical parallels between the occupation of Iraq and the imperial adventures of the British and French empires:

As Europeans rulers conquered Muslim lands, they found they could not crush the Islamic religion, nor win the population over culturally, nor stamp out political resistance. However suppressed, some embers of resistance remained; these often sparked a flame of anti-imperialism that finally drove the Europeans out. In Algeria, for example, a successful eight-year effort, 1954-62, expelled the French colonial authority.

Nor was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq the first Western undertaking to unburden Muslims of tyrannical rule. Already in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte appeared in Egypt with an army and declared himself a friend of Islam who had come to relieve the oppressed Egyptians of their Mamluk rulers. His successor as commander in Egypt, J.F. Menou, actually converted to Islam. But these efforts to win Egyptian goodwill failed, as Egyptians rejected the invaders' proclaimed good intentions and remained hostile to French rule.

The European-run "mandates" set up in the Middle East after World War I included similar lofty intentions and also found few Muslim takers.

The British and French conquerors’ purpose was to plunder the peoples and lands they subjugated. I know of no historical basis for claiming that these imperial powers had “lofty intentions.” Pipes must’ve glossed over the British massacre of 400 unarmed civilians and wounding of 1200 in Amritsar, India in 1919. How did Napoleon “unburden Muslims of tyrannical rule?” Napoleon was a megalomaniac seeking to rule the world. Has Pipes forgotten the French tyrant’s behavior in Egypt?:

The citizens of Cairo continued to openly oppose Napoleon, which caused him to execute more and more people every day. In one day alone he had ninety people shot in the Citadel and five Jews and two women were arrested and thrown in the Nile to drown. The people who worked for the French now rode around on horses and carried weapons. They would insult the Moslems, which must have been encouraged by Napoleon because he always needed these minorities to help him rule. Things continued to deteriorate and it must have been during this time that he decided that he would not be able to stay in Egypt.

In no way is the U.S. trying to “crush the Islamic religion” or “stamp out political resistance.” While I can understand Iraqi resentment of occupation, I see absolutely no evidence that the U.S. has behaved like an imperial power. I believe most of the “resistance” in Iraq is being carried out by extremist partisans like Islamists and former Ba’athists. A recent opinion poll of Iraqis showed that 49% believed the US-led invasion was justified, 57% felt life was better without Saddam, and 70% claimed life was “good” now. Again, I don’t really understand Pipes’ reasoning. Finally, I believe Pipes makes a moot point:

[A]s a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.

Maybe this is true, but the U.S. is handing over power to the Iraqi provisional government on June 30. National elections are scheduled for January 2005. A United Nations team is already in Iraq planning for the elections. Iraqis know this. Why is Pipes so eager to cut and run now?

Don’t get me wrong. Pipes is a reasonable and educated man, and I believe we should consider what he says. Iraq does need a strong leader, but not a dictator (“strongman”). One problem that does stick out in my mind is the lack of a single Iraqi figure that stands out, has name-recognition, and can galvanize his or her people. I mean someone like Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. He is charismatic, well-educated, and an expert diplomat.

Someone will emerge to lead Iraq. Iraqis are a strong people with a long and noble history. I’m not willing to throw in the towel just one year after the defeat of Saddam. Anyone who thought bringing democracy to Iraq would be easy was just plain foolish. If things get really bad by the January 2005 elections, then I’ll start worrying. Fretting now is just unrealistic, panicky, and short-sighted.