How right or wrong is this ?

[BonFiyah]

I would really appriciate your take and input on this persons responses to some <snips> of the articles written on DU such as the Plaid Adder. These two are from "This is what Democracy Looks Like?" APril 14, by Plaid Adder. Does this guy make a good point?


<snippit>(This April, it has become even more obvious that what we are establishing over there or trying to establish, is American control, and not democracy.)

<response> You need control for security; isn't security a prerequisite for the sort of government you'd want to see in Iraq? I don't know of anybody who would prefer that Americans control Iraq in a dictatorial fashion for an extended time versus establishing a functioning democracy ASAP and leaving. I'm pretty sure control is required for establishing that goal.

<snippit>(Bremer's most recent contribution to public relations was to refer to the Iraqis we are currently fighting with as a "poison" that has to be purged from the "Iraqi body politic.")

<response> The only voice isn't al-Sadr's. And if the insurgency was agitating to get a different security force in place to establish a government that secures the liberty of it's people, then maybe the "poison" quote would be puzzling. "Poison" is an accurate term to describe a segment of the population that kills in attempts to secure a government that doesn't secure the liberties of it's people. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't a majority of insurgents working primarily to prevent democracy from forming? If so, how is Bremmer wrong?

[Cursive_Knives512]

1. I'm not sure about the second one

But control is the opposite of democracy, and is not the same as security.

[BonFiyah]

4. But..

do you think that security is definitely a pre-req for democracy.
I mean security of course can be established in numerous ways, and control might be one though not the most democratic.

[kalian]

2. I think Plaid Adder is right on with the remarks....

First of all, while "security" MIGHT be a prerequisite for
democracy to take hold, I don't think that imposing fascist security
to instill "democracy" is appropriate.
The Iraqis have been under decades of control by a dictator and they
need to "vent" and sort out their differences, especially the
Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Unfortunately, they have displaced their
differences to kick our asses in for invading their country...

I think Al-Sadr is taking advantage of a situation. Remember, he
wasn't installed by the US to form part of the Iraqi "government"
council. He's a man with a vision and unfortunately, it means
killing Americans and other soldiers who are occupying his turf.

That is why...we need to get the HELL OUT OF THERE>

[redqueen]

3. Well

Regarding control, it seems obvious to me that the more harshly we try to enforce our control, the more violently those who resent our presence fight against the establishment of any return to the normal flow of daily life. So it seems our method may be counterproductive. Add to that the fact that we're not using Iraqis who would be welcomed to help in establishing a democracy. Is Chalabi still involved in any way, shape or form? He shouldn't be.

Regarding insurgents, Bremer seems to be playing right into their hands, so I don't see how his comments help one bit. Maybe he thought calling them 'poison' would help. I don't know how that could be, though.