The violence in Iraq continues unabated, but there are signs emerging that we may be at one of those proverbial turning points.  In this perspective, let me explain what I mean.

• First, some thoughts on what an American withdrawal from Iraq right now would mean.  This comment is not about reducing the American presence in Iraq, for right now that would probably be a good thing.  Expect that after the 15 December election in Iraq.  Rather, the issue of violence in Iraq is a much larger matter.  Let me explain.  (1)  As David Brooks has observed, the main source of violence is that the Sunnis think they are the majority and cannot accept the possibility of Shiites, whom they consider subhuman, should be permitted to run their own affairs.  Now that the Shiites have a role in Iraq, they are turning rather chauvinistic themselves.  These tensions between Sunnis and Shiites have turned into a low-grade civil war.  If the US leaves completely, that will turn into a full-blown civil war.  As Brooks also comments, in all likelihood, then Iran would enter into Iraq on the side of the Shiites.  Would other nations then enter on the side of the Sunnis?  A frightful thought!  (2)  It is also constructive that 64% of military officers believe the US can prevail in Iraq.  Re-enlistment rates are high because most American troops believe that they can create a better Iraq.  Furthermore, Brooks cites evidence that almost all experts believe that after 18 months of many mistakes the US is finally getting it right.  The still new US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, has established a fairly well-functioned political process.  The influence of the new Secretary of State, Condi Rice, is far more positive than what Donald Rumsfeld has been doing.  Perhaps most importantly, the Iraq troop training has truly been going well.  They are becoming effective fighters and morale is high.  As John F. Burns reports, compared to 18 months ago, the American grasp of the war’s complex tribal, ethnic, political and religious hinterland has advanced considerably.  Intelligence officers now talk assuredly about inter-tribal rivalries and links between Baathist financiers, Islamic militants and criminal gangs.  There is a much greater understanding of intelligence networks and Islamic cells than ever.  (3)  Finally, this whole situation is a danger zone for the Democratic Party.  Increasingly, when one listens to Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, John Kerry and now even Hillary Clinton, the Party is becoming the party of withdrawal.  This may end up backfiring on them.  Assuming the election of 15 December goes well and assuming the US does begin a phased withdrawal, they may find themselves in a political bind.  They have called for withdrawal, while success is within reach.  Only time will tell, but what they now see as a vulnerable window to attack the President, may end up being an embarrassment for them.  Of course, only time will tell.  See John F. Burns, New York Times (20 November 2005) and David Brooks, ibid., (20 November 2005).  

• Second, several comments about the trial of Saddam Hussein.  Recently, columnist Charles Krauthammer has written, “Of all the mistakes that the Bush administration has committed in Iraq, none is as gratuitous and self-inflicted as the bungling of the trial of Saddam Hussein.”  What does he mean?  At first, when I read his comments, I was shocked and wanted to defend the trial, but upon reflection, I believe he is correct.  Let me explain.  Saddam is on trial for war crimes and that is a good thing.  Such trials are always for educational purposes.  Witness the Nuremberg trials after World War II.  Saddam’s trial was to show the world the heinous crimes Saddam committed and thereby establish rule of law within the new nation of Iraq.  But, Saddam has succeeded in placing the new regime on trial instead.  Krauthammer comments, “The lead story of every court session has been his demeanor, his defiance, his imperiousness.  The evidence against him by his hapless victims—testimony mangled in translation and electronic voice alteration—made the back pages at best.”  As one Iraqi has observed, “This has become a platform for Saddam to show himself as a caged lion when really he was a mouse in a hole.”  The latter is an obvious reference to his capture—a dirty, disheveled, broken man in a spider hole.  That is the Saddam we should have on trial.  Instead, we have given him a venue to present himself as a dictator yet again:  “Now he carries on as legitimate and imperious head of state.  He plays the benign father of his country, calling the judge ‘son,’ then threatens the judge’s life.  Hussein shouts, defies, and brandishes a Koran.  The judge keeps telling him he’s out of order.  He disobeys with impunity, the guards not daring to intervene.”  Saddam should not be brought to trial in a suit, but in prison garb, in shackles.  He is a defeated, disparaged dictator, not a dictator on temporary leave.  When Adolf Eichmann was placed on trial, he was behind a glass booth.  Why is not Saddam behind a glass booth?  If this goes on much longer, Saddam will once again be the rallying point for his Baathist followers, the Sunnis, who I mentioned in the first part of this perspective.  As he struts and defies the law, every Iraqi watching on TV may be wondering, will he return to power again?  Maybe he will be vindicated?  As absurd as that may sound, his defiance and arrogance can still instill fear.  Because he has walked out, the US and the Iraqi court should place him, as Krauthammer so correctly suggests, in a glass booth, as the isolated and defeated barbarian that he is.  May we pray that our government does not blunder in this trial.  There is perhaps nothing more threatening than that.  See Krauthammer’s excellent editorial in the Washington Post (9 December 2005). 

All evidence now suggests that the confirmation hearings of Judge Sam Alito to be the next Supreme Court Justice will be brutal.  Overall, they will probably focus on his paper trail on abortion.  Several thoughts:

• First, columnist George Will has recently revealed an interesting set of background facts about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.  His editorial centered on Court of Appeals Judge for the 2nd Circuit, Henry J. Friendly.  In 1970, Friendly was a member of a three-judge panel that heard the first abortion rights case ever filed in a federal court.  This case alleged that New York’s abortion laws were unconstitutional.  In 1968, a University of Alabama law professor, although acknowledging that legislative reforms of abortion laws were advancing throughout the nation, suggested that the judiciary would be a faster route.  He suggested that the embedded right of privacy in the Constitution was the fastest way to get the Supreme Court to focus on the constitutionality of anti-abortion state laws.  Friendly asserted in his preliminary opinion that the professor’s argument was a “disturbing sweep” and was an invitation to “judicial imprudence.”  He also wrote, “. . . the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges.”  As Will observes, “Three years later, the Supreme Court turned all policy choices about abortion—even such details as spousal notification—into matters of constitutional law.”  In 1973, Roe v. Wade short-circuited a democratic process “of accommodating abortion differences—a process that has produced a larger increase in the number of legal abortions in the three years before the Roe decision than were to occur in the three years after.”  As I have said on this program many times, Roe was a slippery slope.  The implied privacy aspect within the Constitution applies to personal information protection, the privacy of our homes from government intrusion without a warrant and due process in terms of searches and seizures.  Since 1973, it has become a justification for Postmodern autonomy—“every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”  Abortion rights are to be totally unrestricted as a result.  I doubt very much if that was the dream of the Republic founded by the Madison’s, Hamilton’s and Washington’s of the late 18th century.  Our democracy and our understanding of the democratic process have suffered because of Roe v. Wade, let alone the millions of children that have been killed.  We should be a nation hanging our heads in shame.  See Wills’s editorial in the Washington Post (1 December 2005).

• Second, a word about Judge Alito and abortion.  In 1985, Alito wrote to then Attorney General Edwin Meese III that he was “particularly proud” of helping the administration argue that the “Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”   That same year he wrote a strategy memo to Charles Fried, solicitor general, outlining an approach to “bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime . . . mitigating its effects.”  His challenge as he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January is explaining those memos.  Arguably, he was advising a client in his memo to Fried, not necessarily sharing a personal conviction.  However, his judicial record is perhaps more important.  In 2000, Alito voted to strike down a New Jersey ban on partial birth abortion and in 1995 to strike down Pennsylvania’s regulations on federally funded abortions for victims of incest or rape.  In both cases, Alito was bowing to the precedent of Supreme Court decisions.  But in 1991, he did vote in favor of a Pennsylvania law that would have required married women to notify their husbands before getting an abortion.  The Supreme Court rejected that view in a 5-4 decision in 1992.  So, Alito’s record on the abortion issue is mixed.  But I am convinced of this:  Every pro-abortion advocate in the nation will press hard to defeat Alito.  Every Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee will vote against Alito.  His fate will be decided on the floor of the Senate and it will all depend on the 14 Senators—the “Gang of 14”—who brokered the deal earlier this year to prevent the change in Senate rules concerning the filibuster.  At this point, we do not know their opinion.  But come January we will.  See Charles Lane, Washington Post (4 December 2005).

As I have argued many times on Issues in Perspective, technology frequently has unintended consequences.  In the realms of reproductive technologies, we now have another example.  As the New York Times recently reported, many women are using donor sperm and artificial insemination to become pregnant.  The method is especially convenient for lesbians and for single women who want children but not marriage.  The result is conception without sex, without love and without responsibility.  But there is another consequence.