"Sobriety is for the people who want it, not for the people who need it," is a well-known 12 step cliche. Econo-Girl believes the same idea applies to democracy and many other things in life.
Iraq must WANT democracy. The neo-conservatives wanted it for them. And maybe, in their own minds, Iraqis thought they wanted democracy too. But look at how they are acting.
The United States cannot make Iraq into a freedom-loving state. We cannot force democracy where people are not willing to compromise to get it. If you are not willing to do what it takes, you will fail. Econo-Girl will go as far as to say this is a spiritual truism.
So then the question becomes: what does America do now? Do we pull out and let them figure it out? Do we establish order first and then turn things over to the Iraqis? Can 0rder even be established there? What will neighboring countries do if we suddenly leave? Will we be handing the Middle East to Iran on a platter? A lot of thinking needs to go into this choice. Thinking that wasn't done beforehand.
4 comments:
The only solution is going to be involvement of all those countries around Iraq (Yes, Iran and Syria included). This is the last thing Bush probably wants, but it is to me the only way out of there, without an embarrasing pull out, "a la" Vietnam.
You are right. The idea that we can just go and transplant our system of government to any nation and it will work perfectly is insane.
I ask you - if Canada were to force a Soviet style government on the USA would it work? No. Probably not.
There was no history of democracy in Iraq. The American system can trace its roots back to the British system. And that goes all the way back to 1215 when the Magna Carta was written. Over the years the Magna Carta evolved. By the time the American Revolution was fought, the idea of a system where the people elect representatives was not a radical change from the system in place. In fact, had the American Colonies been given seats in Parliament the Queen would be on our currency today.
But do not tell this to Bush and his henchmen. They will say you are crazy. Or would they?
I think that someone in the cabinet knew this. If I know it, someone with more education than I have must also know it. But they were not looking at fact.
Bush was looking as unfinished business (finish what daddy started, just like a good cowboy from the wild west) AND ways to pay off his major supporters with fat no bid contracts. Dollar signs. That was the real motivation.
Iggy,
I agree Bush II was acting out his issues with his father in the whole Iraq thing. Beating his father at something seems to be the purpose of Bush II's life, so much so that he rejected any information inconsistent with that. Too bad he couldn't be born into another family that couldn't get him elected President.
Ciscokid,
You're right. But then that was the solution all along. But remember, pulling in all parties was a hallmark of the diplomacy of Bush I. The current President was competing with his father and made that goal the priority. Too bad for America.
Post a Comment