Those Ungrateful Iraqis

Daniel Pipes gave an interview yesterday to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entitled "Pipes calls war a success". In it Pipes calls Iraq a success:

Q: How will we know when the occupation or the invasion of Iraq was a success or a failure?

A: Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing.

According to Pipes, the real lesson in Iraq is not the failure of American policy, but the ingratitude of the Iraqi people:

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them — to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They’ve more or less written us out of the picture.

I am really sorry the Iraqi people have hurt Mr. Pipes’s feelings. Clearly, the Iraqis failed to throw the requisite amount of roses at our feet for the favor we did them.

Mr. Pipes thinks that we should lower our expectations in Iraq. According to Mr. Pipes, we should only concern ourselves with destroying societies not rebuilding them. We’ve got smart bombs we should use them. The blue collar work of rebuilding a society that we bomb to oblivion should be left to the lowly Europeans or some other bleeding heart types:

Q: Does that mean a significant change in what we are doing now, in terms of policy. Should we announce withdrawals?

A: The number of troops is not my issue. It’s the placement and role of the troops. For three years now I have been protesting the use of American troops to mediate between tribes, help rebuild electricity grids, oversee school construction, which seems to me to be a wrong use of our forces, of our money. The Iraqis should be in charge of that. We should keep the troops there, in the desert, looking after the international boundaries, making sure there are no atrocities, making sure oil and gas goes out, otherwise leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Q: Is there anything major that the Bush administration should do now to make things go smoother?

A: We did something good in getting rid of the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is really the extent of our role, to get rid of the hideous totalitarian regimes.

In any event, the theory is good. It’s the implementation that has gone wrong. Mr. Pipes’s theory has withstood the test of reality:

Q: Do you generally agree with President Bush’s Middle East policy — its goals and its methods?

A: I agree with the goals much more than the methods. I just gave an example of Iraq, where I believe the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to have a free and prosperous Iraq are worthy goals. I criticize the implementation. The same goes with democracy. I think democracy is a great goal for the region. I criticize the implementation; I think it’s too fast, too American, too get-it-done yesterday.

Lest you start thinking that Mr. Pipes is unhappy that the implementation of his theory might have led to unintended consequences, think again. He, like Charles Krauthammer, loves a good civil war. Mr. Pipes enumerates all the good things a bloody civil war can do:

Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

  • Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

  • Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

  • Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq’s political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

  • Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

It all makes sense to me now. We misunderstood Mr. Pipes when he said Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. When he said "cakewalk", he meant that defeating Saddam would be a cakewalk. The resulting chaos was not part of his thinking. In fact, the resulting chaos is not even our problem. It is all making sense to me now.

Before you dismiss Mr. Pipes as some right wing chicken hawk on the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider that he does have the ear of the President of the United States. The notion that America should rampage through the world without a care for the devastation this rampage may cause the societies which face our wrath is not a fringe notion – it has significant support within the Administration. In fact, it is the primary driving force behind Mr. Bush’s stay the course policy in Iraq. If you genuinely do not care about the consequences of your actions, it is much easier to label your misadventures as successes. This, I think, in large part explains the strange and often disconnected versions of reality that come from the President and the Vice President. After all, according to Mr. Pipes:

We are engaged in a war, a profound war and long-term war, in which Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows. The real issue is the war that radical Islam, a global phenomenon, has declared on us and that has already been underway for many years, and we’re still at the beginning of it. That’s the really major issue.

Now, if only the Iraqis understood their rightful role in this war of civilizations; if only they understood that they are cannon fodder in the cause of the greater good; if only they understood that Mr. Pipes, from his perch in front of a television screen, thinks the slaughter of innocents is good theater; then and only then, would they be more grateful to the United States for this great favor we have done them. Instead, they continue this nonsense of caring more for their own lives than the greater glory of Daniel Pipes’s small but influential little mind.

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Humor, Iraq, Islam, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Those Ungrateful Iraqis

  1. M2K says:

    Nobody pushed the USA has to come to Iraq, and you can say “Iraquis are ungreatful” if USA cause 200 000 death

  2. Mash says:

    Please reread the post. I did not say Iraqis are ungrateful, Daniel Pipes said so. I would hate to have you equate my position with that of Daniel Pipes’s – he and I could not be further apart on how we view Iraq. Please read the rest of my posts on Iraq to get a fuller picture of my views.

    I apologize for the confusion the title of the post caused you. It was used as the title to highlight the absurdity of Mr. Pipes’s position.

  3. proximity1 says:

    “Ungrateful Iraqis”– I predicted as much even before the start of the war. Americans, (I said (in the New York Times’ reader fora), would never release the iraqi people from a supposed indebitedness, after the US government, on its own hook and against the concerted world-wide outcry of opposition, went into to Iraq saying, in effect, “By God, we’ll do this all by ourselves, if need be!”, and thoroughly laid waste that nation.

    Now, according to morons like Pipes, the Iraqis are insufficiently grateful.

    How grateful would Pipes and his likes be, I wonder, if a coalition of armed force came and liberated us from the joug of Bush and Cheney?

  4. Miraj says:

    Hi Mash,
    I have to admit the title was confusing to me too.
    My opinion is that these three years under the invasion of the Americans have told us a lot about the other face of America.
    The face they entered Iraq with is not the same one they are using now. Calling for freedom and democracy was a lie that we knew from the beginning but getting all their sickness on us in Abu Ghraib ,in many cities of Iraq killing innocent people _(and the list goes on) wasn’t necessary at all. They should have taken what ever oil they needed as returning the favor for getting us rid of Saddam and get the hell out of our country.

  5. Mash says:


    You are going to be free whether you like it or not! We will burn the village to save it. Hmm, I’m hearing echos of Vietnam.

    I suspect Mr. Pipes probably thinks we didnt bomb the Iraqis enough. More bombs, more gratitude. I would laugh out loud if the situation wasn’t so tragic.

  6. Mash says:

    Hi Miraj,

    Unfortunately, I think the Iraqis are being sacrificed at the alter of a discredited theory. Its the theory of the neo-cons that America should now start to use its military power forcefully to reshape the world. Well, the world isnt cooperating very much with their theory.

    We dont see the war here on TV at all. All the images are sanitized. So, we dont see the real aftermath of bombs and missiles. We see buildings blowing up from a distance and it looks like a video game. What the American public should be seeing on their TV screens is what really happens when a bomb goes off in Baghdad. They should see the body parts, the decapitated bodies, the blood. Then, perhaps, the support for this war would come to a swift end.

    America can do a lot better than what we did and are doing in Iraq. Unfortunately, we have created such a mess in Iraq, I dont see a good outcome for Iraq. Do you? Is there a way back from this civil war without a lot more killing?

    Stay safe and I look forward to reading your posts.

  7. Miraj says:

    I have this image in my head, like even though America calls for democracy and freedom but they are still locking their people, the Americans, and feeding them with the news that serve the government goals only..
    However ,I’m not sure if the American people would care much if they started seeing our blood and corpses. I noticed from the way the American soldiers are treating us that they look at us as less than human beings. I had quite a different idea about the Americans and you probably think of me as a naive woman but I used to think of them as I see them in Hollywood movies, sensitive ,nice and brave in seeking the truth and can’t do anything against what they believe in.
    I know generalizing is the worst mistake that we fall into and I’m trying my best to seek the good in the American people, maybe that’s how I found you, but still the circumstances here are such an obstacle.

  8. Mash says:


    I think part of the problem is that the propaganda here has been all about us and them: “You are either with us or against us”. And it has also been used in religious terms like “evildoers”. There has also been an implicit connection made between 9/11 and Iraq by the Adminstration.

    So, given that attempt at dehumanizing the enemy, in the case Iraqis, it does not surprise me that abuses like Abu Ghraib will follow. Its a shame upon America which has in the past always stood for human rights on principle. That is a much harder sell right now.

    We have also put 138,000 soldiers armed to the teeth into an uncertain environment within a civilian population. You cannot put a fighting force into a police action and expect there not to be clashes and violence. The military is a blunt instrument of policy, you cannot use the military to do democracy building. We are doing our military a disservice by putting them into this situation. Only bad things can come out of it, regardless of how disciplined and well intentioned they may be.

    Having said that, I do believe that Americans are a good and decent people. The people have been fed with a constant barrage that preys on their fear of being attacked. But, as they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. So, I am convinced that the American people will eventually choose the leaders that will represent them better.

    But, in the mean time, there has been incalculable harm done to Iraq. How we go about putting Humpty Dumpty together again, I dont know.

  9. proximity1 says:


    I noticed over at the Daily Koz that one of the consummer items is emblazoned witht the slogan :


    miraj wrote:

    ” I noticed from the way the American soldiers are treating us that they look at us as less than human beings. I had quite a different idea about the Americans and you probably think of me as a naive woman but I used to think of them as I see them in Hollywood movies, sensitive ,nice and brave in seeking the truth and can’t do anything against what they believe in.
    I know generalizing is the worst mistake that we fall into and I’m trying my best to seek the good in the American people, maybe that’s how I found you, but still the circumstances here are such an obstacle.”

    Well, you may be watching the “wrong” movies– Americans are a complicated people, led by simple barbarian morons. Don’t confuse us with Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Paine. That was then, this is now. We’re a very different people today.


  10. Thomas says:

    Suck cock, asswipe.

  11. Thomas says:

    Fugly, monkey.

  12. Pingback: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying » Charles Krauthammer Hearts George Michael

Comments are closed.