Another fine mess, chaps

[Brucey]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/31/1067566085160.html

"As the Bushies lurch deeper into the horrors of a protracted guerilla war in Iraq, it is instructive to look back at the overweening hubris which got them into the morass.

In a sabre-rattling speech to Korean war veterans in San Antonio, Texas, in August last year, the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said this of the conflict he was so eagerly pushing: "The freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab 'street', the Middle East expert, Professor Fouad Ajami, predicts that after liberation, in Basra and Baghdad the streets are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans'. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."


A nice article about the mess in Iraq and things that were said and predicted before the invasion. Most people, even most at DU, say we have to stay in Iraq; we can't just pull out. What does this mean? "WE" have to stay? Does it mean our military? Does it mean our governmental and police control? Or both? It strikes me as patronizingly arrogant to suggest that people on this earth are unable to govern themselves and establish their own societies without the help of the all-knowing, all-mighty USA. Why can't we let the Iraqis set up their own government without our military presence? The military seem to be making the situation much worse, not better. If they need police help, they should get it from surrounding Arab countries or establish it themselves. If they need money and aid, we can help (and should help after destroying much of their infrastructure). But it seems apparent that US control of Iraq will continue until US corporations can buy up Iraq's resources and the military can establish a puppet government. This will likely be accomplished by next summer, coincidentally in time to help Bush get re-selectd. Of course, some military will have to remain to protect the puppet government from the almost certain attempts at a coup by dissenting groups who will want the resources for themselves.

[ant]

1. Rome wasn't built in a day

Have we all forgotten what happened in Afghanistan after the Cold War? Did the people there manage to come together and build a free society all on their own or did fundamentalists take advantage of the power vaccuum?

Democracy doesn't just happen, and it's not at all patronizing to acknowledge that. This is not about the people of Iraq being unable to take care of themselves, it's about the reality of nations coming out of years of oppression, sanctions, and war. Such nations are fragile and vulnerable and can not, no matter who their citizens are, simply create a free society all on their own. I can't think of a single nation where this has happened.

Again, what I'm seeing in many of these "the US should get out of Iraq" posts is people equating nation building with the way the current admin is doing it. If Bush were to turn all public schools into Christian schools, requiring religious instruction for all children, would you then say public education is a bad idea? Of course not. We need to make the same distinction here.