# Posted 12:04 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WAS OXBLOG COMPLETELY WRONG? A couple of weeks ago, KH sent me an e-mail with the subject line "Tables Turned". The text of the message consisted entirely of a triumphant I-Told-You-So post I put up the day that Baghdad fell. It begins:

The time has come for those who had faith in American war plans to mock those who didn't. All I add is a note of caution, lest those who now mock become overconfident and leave themselves open to having the tables turned.

Right now, the NYT website is running a headline which says "Jubilant Iraqis Swarm the Streets of Capital; U.S. Says Hussein Has Lost Grip on Baghdad" That would seem to resolve the 'liberation' question. (And if the NYT isn't good enough for you, check out the Guardian for similar reports.)

So, KH is suggesting that the tables have in fact turned and that it is time for OxBlog to admit it. But I'm not so sure that I should. There is no question that the Ba'athist insurgency has proven more resilient than many of us -- including OxBlog -- expected. But is there any real evidence that it has much public support outside the Sunni Triangle? If anything, it seems to have alienated most Iraqis with its violent tactics.

Next come the Shi'ites. A few weeks ago, when Moqtada Sadr launched his rebellion, the NYT eagerly reported that this was the beginning of nationwide revolt that not only united the Shi'ite community but was bridging the Shi'ite-Sunni divide.

So much for that. Consider, for example, the extraordinary story in today's WaPo entitled "US Forces Attack Iraqi Holy City". It sounds like a classic mistake: showing contempt for Islam, losing hearts and minds, legitimizing Shi'ite radicals, etc.

But what do we hear from the residents of Najaf? At one point, three bullets hit the golden-domed shrine of Imam Ali.

"If it was done by the Americans, I don't think they did it intentionally," said Ali Awad, a 28-year-old Najaf resident, of the bullet holes. "If they wanted to destroy the shrine, they could destroy it. But they don't."

Unless Mr. Awad suffers from an extreme from of the Stockholm Syndrome, I'd have to say that his heart and mind are in the right place. Of course, it's not that America is so great or wonderful. It's the fact that most Shi'ites seem to accept Ayatollah Sistani's belief that the best thing for the Shi'ites to help America build a democratic Iraq so that it can withdraw its forces sooner rather than later.

But that's what winning hearts and minds is really about: persuading others that you share the same interests. Now, does Mr. Awad resent America for what happened at Abu Ghraib? I'd imagine so. If most Americans are outraged at what happened, how could an Iraqi not be? (Don't answer that question. There may a disturbing number of Shi'ites and Kurds who think that torturing Sunnis is exactly what America should be doing.)

Anyhow, the bottom line is that Mr. Awad and many Shi'ites like him seem to be just as committed to cooperating with the United States as they were when Baghdad first fell. Will Abu Ghraib change that? I don't know. If it did, the real tragedy would not be that Iraqis never saw Americans as their liberators, but that Iraqis once saw Americans as their liberators, only to lose faith in the United States because of its shameful conduct. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion