Will Iraq be worth it?

Here's an interesting observation from Andy McCarthy in the The Corner over at NRO.

I'll put my own comments on the end:

"For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

There is grave reason to doubt that Islam and democracy (at least the Western version based on liberty and equality) are compatible. But that is an argument for another day. The argument for today is: the American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so.

But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

It is not our place to fix what ails Islam. But it is utter recklessness to avert our eyes from the fact that militant Islam thrives wherever Islam reigns. That is a fact. When and where militant Islam thrives, America and the West are endangered. That is also a fact. How can we possibly be urging people who wisely don’t want it to accept the government-institutionalized supremacy of Islam?

And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?"

I am in total agreement with McCarhy regarding the imposition of Sharia law in Iraq. I can't for the life of me understand why we are even tolerating discussion in the Constitutional "convention" about having an "Islamic state" in Iraq. Arguments to the effect that because "it's their country" are disingenious; Surely no one would advocate that we are required to stand aside and let them establish an Iranian-like Theocracy or a totalitarian state ala North Korea. The fact is that America has expended an enormous amount of money, energy, and -- most importantly -- human life to give the Iraqis the ability to create a modern country that promotes human rights. American has an obligation to its own people and those who we've lost in the effort to make certain demands on the Iraqis in how they create their country to ensure that the goals of our efforts are achieved. Among those demands should be that there cannot be a state religion, and that women have every right of a man.

I therefore find it disheartening every time I hear a report that women may not be granted the same rights as men in the "New Iraq," or that Islam will be the cornerstone of country.

I don't know that I fully agree with McCarthy in saying that the invasion wasn't worth it even if a theocracy is created. I still believe that Hussain was a threat to the world. So removing him was still a good thing. And it's not practical to think that we could have left immediately after deposing him. But that said, I would never have supported trying to build infrastructure in Iraq if all we were doing was helping a country without regard to human rights govern more effeectively.

I suspect that the reason for American ambivalence to a Sharia-dominated Iraq is because of the disgusting homefront displays undercutting support for the war. When action becomes a political liability, even the most resolute President must bow to the political realities of a situation. What's sad then, is that the anti-war activists, who purport to act in the name of those "under the boot of American imperialism," have accomplished nothing but to remove any hope for a responsible government for those people. Instead, they've killed their only hope, leaving them to the devices of totalitarians and murders.

Apparently many in the U.S. didn't learn any lessons from the the millions killed in SouthEast Asia after America was forced to leave Vietnam by the failures of the homefront. I'm reminded of Herodotus' warning about the repetitions of history...