Rumsfield doesn't know either....there are lots of groups in Iraq, a lot of them repressed for years...they are all going to voice their opinions...good for them. However, Glynch jumps at the first one he sees as "The US should be out of here"..... Typical...jump to conclusions with a minimal amount of facts. The people there are just now experiencing freedoms, they will sort out what type of government they want. You don't just say...I want this....and it happens, you have to establish EVERYTHING....the US will have it's hands all over the new Iraqi government...and good for us. DD
Dakota: "yawn" "This is why we will be there a long time. " Hey get all your happy news from Fox and Bush's handlers. Thought you might want some diversity. As someone noted it will be hard for anyone to say what could happen in years and years. Easy for Dakota to say: "Stay there for a long time". You won't be going, will you? Will even any of the kids of the neocons be going? I doubt it. Hey let's stay there for 50 years with other people's children. That isn't that hard is it?
I hope you are right with your optimism and it works out as you expect it to. I just think you underestimate the power which some of these fanatic leaders over there have and how they use religion to incite hatred. I believe that objectively helping the people and improving their living conditions will not even be enough for them to be grateful towards the Americans. It is too easy for the fanatics to blame everything that goes wrong on the Americans. I see a lot of trouble ahead because the anti-Americanism is too deeply rooted in their culture to be overcome easily.
That's exactly what I mean...the fanatics will stir up hatred under the protection of "religious freedom"...even if one attempts to install a democractic system similar to a western democracy. Freedom of religion is a basic right in western democracies. Do you see the dilemma...how to fight those who preach hate when they are covered by a religious gown...that is a dilemma western democracies are facing now already, but in Iraq it is that much tougher to solve this.
I will admit it's too early to see how this will play out. But I can't agree with DD on this one. It's funny: basket-ball wise, we pretty much follow the same thinking. Politically? Couldn't be further apart. This is generally how I saw things going. A short war, we declare "victory," then the Iraqis say, OK, if we're so free, get out of here. "But we can't leave chaos," we say. "If we're free, don't we get to choose our next leader?" "No, you'd just put in a fundamental cleric for a leader." "Well, isn't George Bush basically a fundamentalist?" We say, "We've already chosen a leader for you." "Say what? That's not right," they say. "Yeah, see, your new leaders are Chalabi and James Woolsey." "Hunh?" they say. "Chalabi's been in exile so long, he's no longer one of us, just your stooge; and Woolsey's an American who makes George Bush look like a member of Greenpeace." "You people just don't appreciate anything," we say. "Yeah, I appreciate how your missiles killed my cousins' kids." "(to embedded reporter) Turn off the camera! TURN OFF THE CAMERA! Remember, we have a deal. I want that film! Oh, where are you going now? Sargent, detain this man. Jeez, we come all this way to free these people, and look how they act!" The Sargent says, "Lieutenant, maybe this process isn't gonna be simple like the President said." "No shiznit, my brotha."
I have a hard time believing that some of you guys really don't understand these basic principles. To me, freedom means individual freedom, not freedom to impose an Islamic-based government on everyone in the country--or at least their own brand of Islamic government. (Was anyone here really shortsighted enough to realize that some in Iraq would try to do just that?) I see nothing wrong with trying to move them in a direction where these people not only enjoy their own personal freedoms, but also respect those of others. Is that what you guys are against? If not, what exactly is it? You can spin it however you like, but it's starting to sound like a broken record.
And where is the evidence that the Islamists are forcing their will on others. They should be allowed to speak up. If others don't like them, than it should be up to them to decide. If they do like the Islamists, then that's their choice to make. Nowhere have I seen a story that since the fall of Saddam Islamic Fundementalists have started forcing their will on others. In fact I've seen only one group forcing their will on others, and they come from the U.S. I'm happy that Saddam has fallen, and I want liberty for the Iraqis, but I feel betrayed by what the Bush line was before the war, and what we are seeing their now. Well I was skeptical of what Bush said before, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean the Iraqi National congress, a group of exiles has already 'elected' a mayor of baghdad. They did this before an election system has even been put in place. This is the group that the U.S. is touting to run things there. Again this war may not have been for oil, but securing the oil ministry first, and not securing hospitals for the people you accidentally blew up, or the museums that hold artifacts from the cradle of civilization. Instead of prioritizing those places, the U.S. put their first priorities on the oil ministry, and hasn't apologized at all for it. They've fired into crowds of anti-American demonstrators, and they aren't letting all Iraqis decide what type of govt. they will have. Only certain ones are participating. And of course the largest reconstruction contract handed out was to Bechtel, which is writhe with Bush connections, and was decided by the U.S. and not by the Iraqis themselves who are supposed to be running their country. It looks like the part about liberating Iraqis turned out to be lies. I would love to be shown I was wrong, but so far this administration has done nothing in that direction.
I think the liberals need to stop playing "I told you so" in regards to the American struggles in forming a democratic government, and instead start trying to help the situation. I knew it would be very difficult, and the admnistration deserves some blame for acting like this would be easy. But it seems like SOME people would rather criticize Bush all day long rather than figure out how to democratize a nation in a region that is becoming a grave threat to the Western World, not to mention its own people. And Macbeth, your moral relativism is repetitive, but I'll say it anways. If we are forcing democracy on them, you can argue that they aren't really free, but it is nonetheless a good thing we are doing it. If they have democracy in 10 years, it will be quite an accomplishment and they will be much better off for it. Unless, of course, you want to let Iraqis choose another dictator...
Think about it. Do you think it's a good idea for the Islamists to run the country? It will just be the same old song and dance we have with the other dictatorships. Like the Taliban. That is a BAD idea. Yes, the US is forcing democracy on the region. Isn't that what we should be doing?
I don't want fundimenatlists running the country, but that's not for me to choose. It's not for anyone but the Iraqis to choose.
We can't let them choose another murderous dictatorship. That is just another disaster. We have to guide them for a little bit. Put yourself in the shoes of the administration. What should they be encouraging the Iraqis to do?
Obviously we're having *fun* speculating. Just like all those WMD finds we keep seeing on the bbs. The told-you so's can't really rub it in for years at this rate. This guy called it pretty good IMHO: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm This sounds a bit like the police corporation in Robocop (our military is so allergic to nation building, we're hiring rent a cops ): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41812-2003Apr16.html
I suppose you've sent several recommendations to the administration on the best ways to organize the new democratic Iraqi government. So are you saying they lack the intellect to choose their own government? We didn't do the best job with last leader we put in power over there, what makes you think this time will be any better?
This guy called it pretty good too: http://www.policyreview.org/apr03/kurtz.html It's good to see that both sides are talking about the struggles and problems that will arise, and how to deal with them. On the one hand, the US is cricized for nation- building, on the other hand, the US is criticized wanting an occupation. Oh well, I guess you can't win sometimes. In my opinion, the US should stay as long as it takes. Nation building is the right course of action.
It is very unlikely the overwhelming majority would purposely choose a murderous dictatorship. However, it is possible that a large majority might choose a conservative Islamist leadership and this leadership gradually becomes a murderous dictatorship. I do agree that the US should help setup (and I am sure the Iraqis would agree) strong democratic institutions so that even if a conservative, fundamentalist, Islamist regime is elected, that it cannot morph into a dictatorship later on. Nevertheless, if the Iraqis want to take that risk then the US should let them do so. It is THEIR country, THEIR choice.
Here's the thing; If we indeed fought for their freedom, as we have maintained, it is not up to us to 'let' or 'not let them choose' anything. That is what freedom is. If we are telling them that they cannot choose what they want, because we don't want them to,we are dictating...repeat dictating...What dictators do, by definition. Guide is a nice word, however it is not what we would be doing. To guide without consent is to dictate. I won't even get into the incredible arrogance and jingoism of the assumption that we are more suited to decide what is best for another people in their own country...let lone that anything other than might, as I've said all along, gives us the right to do so. Freedom For Iraq my a$$.
