Whether the UN numbers for civilian deaths are high, low, or spot-on, the fact is that sectarian killings in Iraq have been up for some time. The turning point was Al-Qaeda’s bombing of the golden dome of the Tomb of the Two Imams in Samarra, which was a calculated ploy by extremist Sunni radicals to enrage the Shi’ite majority to take revenge on the Sunni minority. It worked and the preachings of the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for restraint lost their force compared to the militancy of others, notably Muqtada al-Sadr. The results are being reported in the press every day, with murders piled on murders.
The strategy of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was and is clear: to provoke maximum destruction, maximum conflict, and maximum violence, not to drive the U.S. out, but to draw the U.S. further in and to cause the entire region to erupt in flames. That strategy was made possible by the foolish decision of the U.S. government to invade Iraq. I’m glad that Saddam will hang for his crimes, but it’s become more clear what a high price is being paid by the Iraqi people for that small victory.
I got a good deal of positive feedback from my recent panel/debate with William Kristol of the Weekly Standard before the Federalist Society, in which I made the same points while laying out the relationship between “democracy” and “liberty” and the negative effects on American liberty and democracy of foreign policy adventurism. Kristol and the representative of the National Democratic Institute countered that the problems in Iraq could have been avoided had elections been held much earlier and less time devoted to the constitutional process. It didn’t seem a very convincing response to me, either.