JEFF JACOBY
Iraq's independence dayWOULD ANY Iraqi take it into his head to write about June 28, 2004 -- the date on which the United States transferred sovereignty to the new government in Baghdad -- what John Adams wrote about that steamy July day in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted a resolution on American independence?
"I am apt to believe," Adams exulted in a letter from Philadelphia to his wife Abigail, "that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance. . . . It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forevermore." Who would think of greeting Iraqi autonomy with such jubilation? After all, as the papers and the TV talking heads keep instructing us, Iraq is beset by problems. Sovereignty or no sovereignty, insurgents' bombs daily claim new victims, power blackouts last for hours, oil production has been crippled by sabotage, and terrorists cross the border with impunity. So why would June 28 be anything to celebrate? Well, why was July 4, 1776, anything to celebrate? Declaration of Independence or no Declaration of Independence, the American colonies were a godawful mess. American troops were ill-trained and poorly equipped, they were fighting a military superpower, the economy was a shambles, inflation was about to worsen into hyperinflation, and thousands of colonials loyal to the enemy -- Tories -- were taking up arms and committing sabotage in order to undermine the American cause. Journalist Karl Zinsmeister, whose new book, "Dawn Over Baghdad," is the first on the remaking of post-Saddam Iraq, notes in a recent article that we are now 16 months into the Iraqi war. There is no shortage of hurdles that must be surmounted and no denying the violence and instability that complicate the job of turning Iraq into a free and decently governed nation. Yet 16 months after George Washington took command of the Continental Army, Zinsmeister observes, things were far worse. American forces were experiencing "a series of traumatic defeats. They'd lost every single battle since the Declaration of Independence, and had depleted 90 percent of their military strength in heavy fighting. Most of the remaining soldiers declared they were going to go home when their enlistments expired, and in many parts of the new nation, citizens were pledging fresh oaths of allegiance to the tyrant King George." So was Adams simply deluded, to be rhapsodizing about "the great anniversary festival" that should be celebrated "from this time forward forevermore?" Did he really not understand how dire the American predicament was? He understood. Continued... |
