Stephen Schwartz wrote an interesting article about Iraq in The Daily Standard entitled The Poland of Islam? Iraq’s significance in the Middle East. In the article he writes:

Iraq is, rather, a central Islamic country; a keystone with the potential for influencing its powerful neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It shares a common Arab language and tribal traditions with the former, and the Shia interpretation of Islam with the latter.

Defenders of the intervention, concerned that proponents of retreat would abandon Iraq, have drawn more appropriate parallels. Senator Joe LiebermanNo patriot at all, but a shill for AIPAC and using American children as cannon fodder for someone else’s war. warned in 2006 that fecklessness in Iraq could reproduce the failure of the Western democracies to defend the Spanish Republic in that country’s 1936-39 civil war, an abdication that encouraged the totalitarian dictatorships of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin on their paths of aggression.

Others have cautioned that newly-prolific proposals for negotiation with Islamist extremists–especially with the crazy Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — could result in Iraq, while increasingly succumbing to Iranian intrigues, becoming a Czechoslovakia. That country was sacrificed like Spain to the appetites of the dictators at Munich in 1938 and, let us not forget, left to bleed again when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague 30 years later. And finally, some have seen in Iraq a potential Yugoslavia–collapsing into bloody partition–or even a Romania, with its leadership, like Nicolae Ceausescu and his feral wife Elena, massacred.

There is, however, a more relevant and positive historical example evoked by the new Iraq, and it is that of Poland. Lest the metaphor be misunderstood, we must certainly guard against Iraq being divided between Saudi Wahhabis and Iranian radicals as the Polish Republic in 1939 was invaded and split by Hitler and Stalin.

But I have in mind the modern Poland of the last three decades. The new Iraq can play a role in the Muslim world similar to that seen when, at the end of the 1970s, the Polish nation, inspired by Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity labor movement, rose to challenge a Soviet power then viewed as invulnerable. Poland inaugurated an affirmation of popular sovereignty and intellectual freedom that spread first to countries like Hungary with which it shared a Catholic heritage, then to the rest of the Communist zone, and finally to the former Soviet Union itself, which then finally crumbled…

This is not to say that a Polish parallel in Iraq would bring instant gratification for a West, and a world, hungry for resolution of the Mideast crisis. In the 30 years that have passed since the beginning of the Polish national revival, that country has yet to fulfill its noble promise as a herald of democracy. It has contended with its own religious and national extremists, undergone disillusion with its hero Lech Walesa, and has even slid back, at times, into governance by its enduring “post-Communist” nomenklatura. But its role in the dissolution of Communist tyranny in Europe is inarguable.

Many wars fought by Americans were considered lost during the struggle. Washington at Valley Forge, the U.S. after the burning of the capital in the War of 1812 (which we did lose), Lincoln in the early period of the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt before the Battle of Midway in 1942, all faced the specter of defeat. The Korean War ended without a clear victory, although the people of South Korea today enjoy freedom and prosperity thanks to the sacrifice of American forces. Many Americans have lost touch with our military history, and these examples may mean little to them as they ponder the conflict in Iraq.

But in living memory, it is impossible to think that President Ronald Reagan would have told the Soviet rulers, between 1981 and 1989, to dispose of a reborn, independent Poland as they saw fit. Reagan would not have called out, in an unamusing paraphrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, reinforce this wall!” The Poles, like the Iraqis, faced setbacks and disappointments, but they prevailed, and their example changed the history of the world. A firm commitment to the new Iraq from the next American president may do the same for the Muslim nations…

Now there is a certain amount of this that I disagree with, including its main point. That said, there are parallels that should be explored.

Firstly, I disagree with Mr. Schwartz’s idea that Poland has not lived up to its democratic potential. I believe he sees the election of what he refers to as “post-Communist” nomenklatura as a negative, perhaps because the election of those folks is not in line with his particular vision of Poland’s future or political makeup. What he doesn’t see is that the post-communist governments in Poland, regardless of their philosophical affiliation, have all agreed on core issues, things like EU membership, NATO, privatization, and sound economic principles. Where the governments diverged they diverged on cultural issues — and even there not so much. Still in all, the core of democracy in Poland is self-determination, and Mr. Schwartz should key more on that. Poles have always been at heart – self-determinant.

Secondly, while I agree that the idea of being self-determinant might work in Iraq, I do not see the current American model of supporting “self-determination” as accomplishing anything but disaster. Self — key on the word self — determination will only work if the United States gets out of the way.

True, the U.S. helped Poland’s Solidarność in great measure, but that help was financial and moral. We didn’t need to invade. We didn’t need to destroy large tracts of society, breaking down established roles and cultural boundaries, in order to bring change. Poland worked because the Poles had the key components already in place (cultural, religious, and ethnic unity as well as a common historical identity and understanding).

Mr. Schwartz suggests that our intervention works — but that is not true in the way he envisions, i.e., by setting the expected outcomes, by guarding “against” certain outcomes that do not fit our way of thinking. We cannot dictate outcomes or cultural/religious interaction, we can only accept them and move on with our lives, accepting self-determination such as it may exist.

I agree with Mr. Schwartz in saying that the U.S. needs to offer a firm commitment to Iraq, like it did vis-í -vis Polish freedom. What we must not misunderstand is that that support was quiet, minimalist, and almost entirely behind the scenes. Much of the Polish experience was built upon connections between the old and new country (Polish immigrants in England, the U.S., and Australia), trade union support, societal structures, culture, and strong touch points like the Church. It was after-all the natural outcome for Poland – an outcome envisioned and executed by Poles.

Lastly, the U.S. must start with a strong commitment to its own self-understanding. How are we to act in the world? Is the model the Polish model or the Iraq model? The results speak for themselves. A commitment to negotiation (yes it is long and painful), supporting indigenous efforts at resolving issues, and most of all a commitment, at all costs, to staying away from Bush style interventionism, is the key to success. That is where Reagan had it in spades. The big stick is there – but words are the better tool.