Dirty deals are dirty deals. France, the nation which kept Ba'athist Iraq as a favored trading partner through thick and thin over a period of nearly thirty years, happens to be owed quite a bit of money from Saddam's defunct regime. They want it back, whether or not the Iraqi people carry no responsibility for their former oppressor's debts. The Wall Street Journal proposed a solution today:

During and after World War I, the U.S. extended a substantial amount of credit to its European allies. In 1922, the U.S. and 15 European countries agreed on a total indebtedness of about $11.5 billion - slightly more than $4 billion for France. Payments were made until 1931, mostly from German war reparations. Then the Depression led Hoover to declare a one-year moratorium, and by 1934 all but two of the countries defaulted. As of last December, according to the U.S. Treasury, principal and interest due on the French debt amounted to about $11.8 billion, or about twice what France may be owed by Iraq.

If France is going to make America's mission in Iraq more difficult by insisting on Saddam's debt, maybe we should insist on France finally repaying us.

An especially good idea, considering that the campaign to mine innocent Iraqis for Saddam's credit account is as repellent as the destinations for those monies. A lobbyist for repayment, recently misrepresented in a major American newspaper as an disinterested party, has actually represented the interest of forgiving the Soviets' debt. (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.)

The hope of simple men doesn't make for flashy headlines, apparently. Steven Vincent recalls a recent exchange with a Baghdad cabbie:

Over the tape-recorded sermons of a Shia cleric, my driver related how last spring he took his two children on a pilgrimage to the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf, something he couldn't do under Saddam. "I was so happy, my family happy!" His comments began tumbling out one after another. First he criticized "Arab media — Al-Jazeera and Arabia TV. They only say bad things about U.S., only talk about bombs and killing Americans. Never about how things are growing in Iraq, getting better." Then he turned to the entire Arab world. "They fear Iraq will become a democracy, then every country will want to become democratic and the rulers will be in trouble-they only want people with one thought, one mind." As for Iraq's future, he had great optimism, provided that the new constitution included religious freedom for everyone — "Muslims, Christians, Jews, because Mohammad said 'Let there be no forcing of religion.' Mohammad said we are all brothers and to kill a man is to kill your brother."

By the time I reached my hotel, I had a Koran-sized lump in my throat. I peeled off a wad of dinars, but the cabbie refused to take the money. After I implored him to accept payment, he finally took the bills, slipped them in his shirt pocket, then took them out and handed them back to me. "You give me the money, now I give it back to you — a gift to my friend from America." Then, turning up the volume on the imam's sermon, he gave me a big missing-toothed smile and drove off in a cloud of exhaust. Watching him disappear into traffic, I had tears in my eyes, and they weren't from the Baghdad smog.

And, according to Vincent, the ambivalent and hostile reactions to American occupation come largely from Sunnis - Saddam's favored class, and the inhabitants of Iraq's most insecure cities and towns. Iraqis who have a stake in democracy do appreciate our presence. Is that enough perspective for the homefront?

Yes, the president is happy, all right:

The Senate Monday gave President Bush his requested $87.5 billion package for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The New York Times said the voice vote occurred late afternoon.

With its long-standing tradition of pork legislation - let alone its responsibility to support the military action it authorized in Iraq - Congress had no right to quibble. The Sunni Triangle will be pacified sooner than later, and keeping unrest cordoned off there for the short term will allow the Kurds and Shiites to safely continue rebuilding their country. Thereafter, a modernizing Iraq will surely cut fissures into whatever popular support Ba'athists enjoy in Sunni enclaves. This is money well-spent.

Andrew Sullivan understands the Ba'athist strategy to defeat the confidence of America's homefront well. Unfamiliarity with both the need to democratize the Near East and the psychological schemes adopted by totalitarians who wish to prevent this are the greatest threat to civilization's triumph.

My suggestion? Find a grumbler or a doubter - or even someone who isn't quite sure about the whole thing. Talk reason to him, and see if you can't revive their determination. An old childhood acquaintance - great guy, by the way - actually sought me out yesterday; he had misgivings, and wanted to hear my side, so I politely explained as much as I know and believe about the war. At one point he thanked me, saying my lecture "really made a lot of sense," and adding that he felt he hadn't heard the same message from the White House. Granted, he's a college student - college students and current events don't usually mix - and his primary news sources include CNN (I suggested he give Fox News at least a try). But I'm slowly turning to Armed Liberal's side of the argument on what Bush should explain to the public about the war on terror; at a time where war opponents are taking advantage of uncertainty these past weeks, the president needs to bolster confidence while dispelling the illusion that Iraq is a one-off.

Speaking of war opponents playing footsie with memes and outright distortion, my neighbor mentioned a Sunday op-ed by Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Dick Feagler. A liberal buddy once referred to Feagler as "the most bitter man in Cleveland." Before September 11th, Feagler was a Back in My Day sort of elder. His authorship was somewhat humorless, if harmless. Over the last two years, however, his columns have become shrill and factually baseless; a combination of isolationist rhetoric, veteran's bigotry against civilians and leftist hearsay.

Against my better judgment I read the column. It was far worse than I'd imagined. Though Feagler doesn't seem to be a Buchanan anti-Semite, he's not above appropriating Rosa Parks' plight for an outrageous, racially charged sneer:

The guy with credibility is Colin Powell, who has pretty much been shoved to the back of the bus.

Come again? Public voices like Feagler help illustrate how opponents of action have lost the capacity to argue rationally. The rest of his column was nonsense; the same man who claimed last year that no debate had taken place - in fact one did, only he'd lost - is now complaining that the mission in Iraq is unclear.

Dick Feagler doesn't know what the war on terror is about? Two years after September 11th, two years of contrasting the brutality of authoritarians against the enthusiasm of liberated peoples, we must conclude that he simply hasn't been paying attention. The only cops in Dick's "cop war" are police states in the Near East, heart of Islamist terrorism. How can he lament bringing secular and religious thugs under the same umbrella when their fundamental motives and methods - domination through the strength of fear - are identical? Extremism springs from oppressive, closed societies; terrorism is the modern candidate. This is not about intelligence. This is about culture.

I do not expect Dick to accept what is. He calls the WMD case "murky," a case where the plaintiffs included President Bush, his father, Bill Clinton, and scores of countries in the U.N.; the defendant was Saddam Hussein. Dick Feagler disqualified his argument the moment he put pen to paper.

Why are we in Iraq? Set aside Saddam's many contacts with al Qaeda:
Baghdad visits by Ayman al-Zawahiri in 1992 and 1998; George Tenet's 2002 testimonial regarding "safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression" and chemical weapon training in Iraq; contacts in the Philippines between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda affiliate, Abu Sayyaf; safe haven in Iraq for another al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Islam. Ba'athist Iraq was the most militarily dangerous state, yet is also one of the most potentially modern in the region. Democratizing the Near East and depriving terrorism of desperate, angry young men and women is the victory we seek. Where Dick sees a troubled part of the world he'd rather not hear about, others see an obligation for Americans and all of free humanity. This is a war for freedom, and we will defeat today's great evil by securing for others the liberties that define us.

Glenn Reynolds links defense for a good man slighted by cynics, Chief Wiggles.

I sent off a clutch of picture books for Iraqi kids in Wiggles' jurisdiction last week. "Boosterish," my foot.

And when the strife is fierce
the warfare long,
Steals on the ear
the distant triumph song.
And hearts are brave again
and arms are strong.

From "For All the Saints," 1906. Hymn composed by by Ralph Vaughan Williams for words written by William H. How, 1864.

As I said on Monday and many times before that, terrorists do their lunatic cause a disservice (much to our benefit) by directly attacking the Iraqi people. Not only will the Allies refuse to budge, but the Iraqis won't, either. And they recognize their true enemies:

Like many Iraqis, Yassen Saeed is convinced that a surge of suicide bombings which has killed dozens of civilians in Baghdad is the work of foreign extremists seeking to sow chaos for US-led occupation forces. “They are criminals. Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians from the Arab world. Iraqis wouldn’t do this,” said Saeed, a retired oil worker whose son was wounded in Monday’s attack on the Red Cross (ICRC) office which killed a dozen people.

Iraqis are also making distinctions between Muslims and terrorists who serve Allah, similar to a few of the statements made by embattled General William Boykin:

“The people who did this are not Iraqis ­ they are from other countries,” said Najah Shamon, a luggage vendor.

“The people making these attacks are not Muslims. If they were, they wouldn’t attack during Ramadan. I accuse Al-Qaeda,” he added.

Al Qaeda agents aren't real Muslims? It seems that the average Iraqi can wrap his brains around what others cannot. Understandably, some Iraqis are uncertain in these days after the fall of Saddam Hussein - the natural period of instability and lawlessness, as was experienced in Germany and Japan, has been greatly exacerbated by Iraq's neighbors' intention to wage their war inside Iraq's still-porous borders. But the Iraqis won't give up their newfound freedom:

Not all Iraqis believed the bad times will last, saying things have improved over the last six months.

“I think this is a dirty war,” said grocer Mounir Ali Judi, 45. “They are targeting police stations, they are targeting the law, the security of the people. They clearly showed they are against the Iraqi people.”

But Judi expressed defiance, saying that he plans to take his family into the streets to celebrate Ramadan. “Bombs will not make us hide behind the walls of our house. They cannot stop me from having a normal life.”

It's ironic that the Lebanon Daily Star ran this report: contrary to many fears, a Beirutization of Iraq this is not. Yes, the Iraqis will be an inspiration to the region and beyond for courage, vision and faith.

Terrorists know the lingering Western complexes from Vietnam and Mogadishu well. Their strategy is based on their understanding of a timidity that overwhelms judgment after several well-placed terror attacks. For some of the terrorists' targets, that strategy has won a brief victory:

International organisations continued their exodus from Iraq on Thursday, with the United Nations announcing a further cut in its staff following this week's string of car bombings in the capital and stepped up attacks against coalition troops.

On Wednesday, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, medical aid group also said they too were pulling their workers out of Baghdad despite pleas from the US administration to stay.

Terrorists have also used to their advantage the arrogant, self-described magnanimity on which most non-governmental organizations pride themselves. Believing themselves invulnerable to attack, both the United Nations and the Red Cross brushed off and continue to reject military protection:

Red Cross officials said they would take steps to improve security but would not accept protection from the U.S.-led coalition, citing their organization's stance as an independent and neutral humanitarian force.

Apparently, the vaporization of a three thousand-strong independent and neutral pecuniary force two years ago failed to make an impression on NGOs. We repeat: terrorists do not discriminate between civilian and soldier, involved and uninvolved. They'll read actions by the UN and Red Cross as Thank you, may I please have another? The terrorists have struck a blow to at least the bureaucratic West - and provided us all with, by tragic means, the best possible example of why the United Nations has neither the will nor the sense to determinedly bring order to Iraq.

Our boys, on the other hand, won't run. The terrorists' psychological strategies with poor execution tactics in both Iraq and Afghanistan against troops are a fatal mismatch. Faced with American and Allied resolve, the terrorists will be forced to fight a war with conventional values and victory conditions - troop strength and morale, land and resource control. That's a war they can't possibly win.

Another Most Wanted Ba'athist has been captured, and this big fish will help to prove what the White House and the right has been saying about Saddam and terrorism all along:

A senior member of Saddam Hussein's ousted government is believed to be helping coordinate attacks on American forces with members of an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, a senior defense official said Wednesday.

Two captured members of Ansar al-Islam have said Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is helping to coordinate their attacks, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

That information is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some of the attacks on U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.

Hopefully, this will hobble some arms of the insurgency while reminding Americans how inextricably dictatorship and terrorism are linked in the Near East. State-perpetuated ignorance and oppression lure many into doctrines of hatred and violence; people with rights, opportunity and a future have no need for extremism. Saddam's deposition and Iraq's democratization will bring us closer to defeating terror; this capture will help our forces complete the first objective.

Stephen Green comments on the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Bernard Lewis and R. James Woolsey I read during lunch:

What might be the most intriguing aspect of reviving the 1925 constitution is that it already provides a head of state who could prove tolerable to Iraq's factious Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds:

Conveniently, the 1925 constitution provides that the people of Iraq are deemed to have "confided . . . a trust" to "King Faisal, son of Hussain, and to his heirs . . . ." If the allies who liberated Iraq recognized an heir of this Hashemite line as its constitutional monarch, and this monarch agreed to help bring about a modern democracy under the rule of law, such a structure could well be the framework for a much smoother transition to democracy than now seems at hand. The Sunni Hashemites, being able to claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammed, have historically been respected by the Shiites, who constitute a majority of the people of Iraq, although the latter recognize a different branch of the family. It is the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, not the Hashemites, who have been the Shiites' persecutors.

If the idea of a Hashemite Restoration sounds familiar, it's because it was a popular one (on certain op-ed pages and in the blogosphere) in the spring and summer of last year. Originally, the talk was about Saudi Arabia, which was originally (and unusually decently) controlled by the Hashemites.

But something tells me Jordan's Hashemite King Adbullah wouldn't mind having nephews crowned in Riyadh and Baghdad.

The White House shouldn't touch this with furnace tongs, much as I highly respect Messrs. Woolsey and Lewis. It's an unnecessary step backwards and a public relations/diplomatic disaster. Debate on Iraqi governmental structure has until now been polar, centering on one question: Will the United States introduce democratic institutions or will it not, and instead make a beeline for the Atlantic coastline after leaving a pliant dictator? Because the compromise introduced here is not well known outside of the admittedly wonkish quarters Stephen has listed, announcing the installation of a Sunni monarch would definitely be received here and abroad as a turn towards the latter possibility.

One of the reasons why MacArthur's SCAP left at least a titular Imperial system in place was because it was familiar, having survived the militarists' seizure of power. Only a contemporary connection to what was, at its basic structure, a dictatorial establishment could justify leaving any trace. Hirohito renounced his omnipotence and executive authority; his duty was symbolic, to provide the Japanese with some semblance of continuity as they struggled with the private property and egalitarian political rights even the Meiji Restoration failed to produce. Few Iraqis would actually remember the Good Old Days before the mid-1950s; it's unlikely that they'd appreciate an imported king after being promised truly representative government.

The Weimar Republic certainly wasn't much of a model for postwar Germans. If the constitutional convention in Herrenchiemsee, Bavaria truly wanted a unifying figure in German history - from before the troubled federalism of the 19th and early 20th Centuries - they would have crowned a new Holy Roman Emperor. But the convention embraced modern liberty, and Germany is a robust democracy today because of that.

I detest the bigoted overtones in various predictions that assure Arab failure in governing themselves as Westerners have learned to; these statements are especially maddening when one considers the resounding successes of Germany and Japan, two countries with their own postwar naysayers. Kurds, Sunni and Shiite need to learn to live with one another for the rewards of coexistence themselves and won't be any better off with a crown; why else would the entire world expect America to overcome its ethnic divisions? And Iraqis are sure to find much stronger parallels and inspirations in the next few years by looking to kingless constitutions like our own - or at least states with superfluous royalty like the United Kingdom - than to rummage through an unstable jury-rig meant for the decades between the World Wars. Why not lift a few lines from Hammurabi's Code, for goodness' sake? It's an enduring item in the history books. The last thing democratic hopefuls in the Near East need is to see the implied inability of Iraq to live freely without a gigantic pair of historical training wheels.