-- snip ---
"This whole 'blaming Iraqis' thing is a simple way of trying to weasel out ... to say, 'They're not really trying to make political change, so we should leave,'" said Davis, one of several outside experts invited to a Monday meeting of Bush's war cabinet.
a change in government does not immediately mean a change in a society. To build a true democracy requires cooperation among the people
the bushies/GOPers like to compare Iraq's democracy to our American revolution. They have often pointed out how long it took for our revolution and establishment of our government took. True it did take time, however our society/culture at that time had already developed some level of independence away from England
During our colonial times, we were seperated from England by distance. It often took several months for a communication to get to England and back again. This left the colonial governors on their own.
If threatened by an outside force or a natural disaster - the colonial governor could not pick up a phone or send an e-mail asking for help. We had to deal with the situation without governmental help.
The majority of "Americans" were born here, raised here and England was a distant land, Parliment was some vague body of legislators, and King George was an illustration in a newspaper. We had a few generations of people who never set foot in England, and their only connection to England was perhaps seeing a flag.
Iraq has had many generations living under a very controlling government, and they are accustomed to that cultural form where people are told what to do and what not to do. Independence and free thinking is not a part of their society.
Think of it as being institutionalized. The situation is the same, except on a cultural scale. When a person has been in a prison or otherwise confined for many years in a facility where their daily lives are controlled by someone else it is difficult for them to adjust to suddenly having to make decisions for themselves. To go from total control to independence overnight and succeed just doesn't happen. This is a reason for half-way houses, it gives some level of independent living while still providing controls.
In Iraq's situation - we've opened the doors to the insititution and told people "Hey, you're free, you're on your own." On a societal scale, Iraqi's aren't going to adjust overnight, nor in a few years - it's going to take 2-3 generations before they even get to the point of accepting the idea of a democracy. the bush-plan has no half-way houses.
Military control is not enough nor is it an appropriate mechanism for nurturing a democracy. By its nature a democracy is nurtured by the people and the people have to be taught how to take care of it. The bush-plan never made provisions to educate and teach the Iraqi's what it means to live in a democracy (and it still doesn't). The bushies/GOPers are depending on a military machine, they are using the stick instead of the carrot.
Bringing "freedom" to a people is not a timeline plan where "A" leads to "B". It's a multitude of levels which needs to happen simultaneously. It needs to happen on an environmental level (i.e. substantial reduction of violence), it needs to happen on an infra-structural level (hospitals, schools, utilities, etc), it needs to happen on an economic level (stores, factories, businesses) and it needs to happen on a societal level where people have confidence in their government and not see it as a just changing the name on a building.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
