If you were here, you would recognize the animosity in most Londoners towards what the Bush and Blair administration are doing in Iraq. When I try and bring up political issues, they seem to categorize me as a redneck American who is blinded by patriotism. Can't be true!
Actually I was there in the 80s. much different time. So most Londoners would agree with the assessment of the article wnes posted. thanks
Not only to us, but also to the Mujahadeen and bin Laden's supporters who bitterly fought the commonists in Afghanistan. That instance was a rallying point for the fundamentals in its crusade against the atheist empire. A similar war is being waged upon us with the Black Hawk incident in Somalia serving as prime example that we can be defeated with time. Following through in Iraq might become our Afghanistan with similar collapse as a major possibility. Pulling out will become another Somalia. We're in a tough bind right now that revisiting the words "shock and awe" really questions whether Bush's advisors realize what they have done.
This conversation - and Torque's comments - have really hit hard this time around. I might post my thoughts later tonight. After a couple more beers...
Torque; I'm coming late to this thread and have skimmed it so I apologize for joining in the scrum you're being subjected but you have brought up many points that I find too worrying to pass up without comment. Except you're essentially arguing that invading Iraq is right on the basis of the inherent goodness of democracy and freedom. You dismiss the self defense argument of WMD to make an argument that we have to act to spread democracy. As you say below: Now this part is what I find the most troubling about the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. You've mentioned history a few times so you're probably aware of Wilsonian ideals and how implementing foreign policy based on those ideals failed badly. The problem is that by its difficult to impose those from outside. The intrinsic force of nationalism is often too powerful of a pull that many will resist outside imposition of political systems even if it does improve their lives. Also historically we have done a terrible job of building democracies in places like Iraq. Our two successes of Germany and Japan are due to that they had the benefit of being advanced and educated countries with very homogenous populations. OTOH we've failed badly in places where those conditions have either never existed or hadn't existed for a long time. If such a thing was so easy Haiti would've been a successful democracy under the Wilson Admin.. The other part of this that is very troubling is that the Admin. had to act in Iraq. I find this very specious logic when there are several regimes, many who are still allied to us, that are also brutal and repressive. It arguably would be easier to nudge them towards to freedom and democracy through using our trade, military and diplomatic ties. There is nothing about Iraq that inherently makes it the lynch pin for a democratic domino theory other than that we made it so. Iraq was an elective war. Nothing about it forced our hand when even to accomplish the Wilsonian ideal there were many other choices to be undertaken with potentially far less cost. Again it all comes down to can you force people to become democratic and progressive at the point of a gun? It took almost a hundred years for that to work even in the former Confederate States of the US. I'm not going to rule out it isn't going to work. I think it is too early to tell but signs aren't looking good. Even without us Iraq is a sharply divided country with long simmering hatreds. For most of the history of modern Iraq it was held together by strongmen and its hard to imagine that they will leave those hatreds aside to buy into a united Iraq. Further as long as we're there we're another destabilizing factor in the mix since we're not percieved as being a neutral arbiter over Iraqi affairs. I certainly hope 20 years from now Iraq is the kernal of a democratic progressive middle east but history of these type of conflicts tell me otherwise.
I know this was directed at TheGary but I'll be happy to take a crack it. I believe Arabs and Muslims are capable of being democratic but given the current situation in Iraq I don't believe the Iraqis are. They may at some point but at present I think they are too wracked by simmering ethnic rivalries that are now sprouting up after the lid of a dictatorship has been taken off. As I said in my previous post I don't believe democracy can be imposed at the point of a gun. Democracy is a fragile thing and just because we tell them democracy is good for them and they even believe that doesn't mean that many will accept it because the force of nationalism resents outside interference. For that matter even if most Iraqis want democracy it doesn't take many from bringing it down. Think about it this way. Democracy is more than just voting but is a voluntary commitment to abiding by the rules of a civil society. Its hard to run a civil society when there are many, even if they are a small minority, actively working to bring it down. Either they succeed and create chaos or the government has to clamp down so hard on civil liberties that it resembles more of a police state than a free society.
You said "if/when a free and democratic iraq emerges, it will be because the arab faction that kills the most people in the inevitable civil war wants it to be that way, and not because of anything we did, but in spite of it. " I asked "Are you saying that Arab factions are incapable of finding a democratic solution without the killing of a lot of people?" How is that a ridiculous question?
