Today's must-read comes from leading Iraqi dissident and intellectual Kanan Makiya. His Dear Iraqi Friends in Europe and the United States letter is powerful and rings with truth:

"...Why do I write this? Because I developed the impression (and it is only an impression--targeting no one in particular, and arising from the hundreds of e-mails I must have received about the Observer piece) that some of you think you can lift your noses and ride into Iraq on American tanks, above the stink of it all, without having to wade knee-high in the shit that the Baath Party has made of your country. You cannot. That is a pipe dream. The Americans will be here for the shortest time that they can possibly get away with, and they will not understand during that time, nor even are they capable of imagining, exactly what it is they are dealing with, much less have they the stamina to move it all in the direction of the gentle and forgiving way of life (by contrast with Iraq) that we all have enjoyed for so many years in the West.

No one can rebuild and take responsibility for such a catastrophe other than the people who are in some way or another part of it, and even responsible for it. That is the most fundamental reason why we Iraqis must always insist on being partners of the United States and not its stooges. I am happy to be a stooge -- I have no nationalist or patriotic problems with stooge-ism, believe me -- if I thought it were in fact a stance towards the world that would actually get me to where I, and I believe you all, want to go. My problem is that I know it will not. And I do not know how to fool myself, or get myself into the mode of thinking, that maybe it will. "

This letter is significant on a number of levels, only some of which concern Iraq directly. Back on January 17th, my Hitchens on De-Nazification post observed that Hitch's frank discussion of "the civilizing mission":

"...raises an issue that I told a friend yesterday was coming to our debates: the reassessment of colonialism on both the left and right.... As this issue begins to bite in earnest, it will help define our age. And it will not break along traditional left/right lines."

It would be left to Lee Harris to write Our World-Historical Gamble, the article that explained what was in my head when I wrote that and took those embryonic ideas to the next level. Hitch trigged my instincts; Lee gave those instincts a rock-solid framework to rest on. But it would be Daniel Kruger who would openly raise the banner in the Spectator on March 15, and make The Case for Colonialism:

"Slowly, obscurely, enunciated with difficulty in thick Texan accents, a new doctrine of international order is emerging, of which the imminent war is a crucial outing. It is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention — or, to give it its proper name, neo-colonialism. This doctrine is driven by the firm belief — uncluttered by relativist self-loathing — in the universal principles of liberty and justice. It gives expression to our sense that everyone, not just the West, has a right to live in a decent country — and that the West has a duty to help them do so. In particular, it gives substance to the vacuities of the ‘ethical foreign policy’"

In theory, there is no necessary difference between Kruger's point of view and Kanan Makiya's. Both have their attractions when dealing with failed or rogue states, in an international order whose tolerance for both is shrinking. Either approach can certainly fit within Lee Harris' framework for the emerging world order of "neo-sovereignty." In practice, however, the differences are real. More to the point, their practical application will magnify those differences over time.

As I've noted, this debate will not break along left/right lines. There are a number of behavioural and emotional tendencies on the Left that will lead some of them toward a colonialist orientation despite its status as one of the movement's gravest taboos. Ecology and GMO issues offer just a couple of ready examples, all of which revolve around extending their domestic "political correctness" ethos and approach to foreign affairs. As the faction of the left that refuses to confront Third World murder and thrives on hate disillusions more and more of its leftist contemporaries, the split will grow and those taboos will progressively crumble. In a development that would have been unimaginable 40 years ago, the issue of colonialism will divide the left.

On the other side of the fence, there are strong trends in modern neoconservatism that are likely to find Makiya's approach highly congenial. it's no accident that many of the original neocons were Trotskyites, the eternal rebels of the left; the movement's subsequent exposure to the inherently tragic view of humanity that lies at the heart of conservatism makes a careful, limited and equalitarian approach to "neo-sovereignty" highly attractive. Those neocons who do not absorb that aspect of the conservative worldview, however, will be tempted to grander designs. In this, they will be joined by other non-isolationist elements of the right whose belief in Western superiority and in order as a primary value will tempt them strongly toward Kruger's outlook. The right, too, will divide.

Other approaches and structures may also emerge, but at best they will compete with neo-colonialism, not supplant it. It's time to deal with the questions this raises, and do so honestly. If we've learned anything over the past 18 months, it's the rediscovery of the old axiom that ideas have consequences. Right now, the currents exemplified by Harris, Makiya and Kruger are just electrons swirling around the blogosphere. As others begin to pay attention, however, and the logic of the times gives them traction, these ideas may yet shape the destiny of millions - in the Third World, and in the West as well.

If you accept Harris' thesis, where do your heart and head lie - with Makiya, or with Kruger? Why? How does each fit into Harris' framework, and what would each mean in practice? How do they differ, and where do their limits lie?

Tragedy was the fate of colonialism's original enterprise, and tragedy may yet be our fate once again - unless we begin, now, to lay the groundwork for a better future. In a world where ideas have consequences, a clearer view of our ultimate goals and means is a fine place to start. Let the debate begin.