The war is a total disaster-the Bush administration has admitted as much (worded a little differently-they said "mistakes" had been made). They insist that a nondemocratic country hold parliamentary elections, and what happens? They elect Hamas, the freaking terrorist leaders that we were trying to oust. The people choose to follow radical leaders when given the opportunity. Now America is expected to remain there while their government falters and refuses to take responsibility? Note to President Bush: Democracy is not for everyone, and we shouldn't ram it down other people's throats. Early Americans sought for it and were willing to fight for it. The people in Iraq (the voting majority, anyway) have shown that they do not
Britain was correct in pulling out of Iraq, and finally requiring the local army and government to step in and do something-there have been improvements in that area since. America should follow suite. Iraq will almost definitely fall into civil war, and mediating that war while ignoring larger threats (i.e., Iran, North Korea) is a misuse of resources. I do not believe that the next attack on America will be from Iraq. The terrorist camps are in the nether regions of the country anyway, where are troops are having little or no influence. The individuals who are training terrorists are doing so whether our troops are there or not. We may be stopping terrorists from coming onto American soil (only for the time being-they are sure to find a way over sooner or later), but Americans are still dying-just dying under a different flag. Pointless.
Meanwhile, North Korea has completely ignored UN sanctions to disclose it's nuclear proliferation programs. You missed the mark Bush.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Sorry Adam, but your facts are wrong. First of all, Hamas is not in Iraq but that is the elected govenrment of the Palestinian people. Palestine as in Israel. Secondly, the Iraqis have been participating in their government. The Kurds jumped right in from the get go. In fact, there were a disproportional number of Kurds in the government initially because they saw the system of democracy as a way to finally end their oppression. Maybe they jumped so wholeheartedly into it because they were tired of having WMD's used on them by Saddam. All of the other groups have jumped on board as well. They are still learning how to govern their country, but they ARE learning. I actually read a great article about it in the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago. The military is doing an amazing job working with tribal leaders to help them govern.
Another point you got wrong is that Britain has not pulled out of Iraq. They are still in and they will go the distance. What do you think they are?? French? Here is what a british article has to say about it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/wiraq11.xml
Also, I know that a lot of people would like to say that the surge is not working and that Gen. Petraeus is lying about our success. Aparently, the terrorists disagree. Here is a fascinating article about how they see the war going. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html
Finally, I have served a mission with people who had been oppressed for 50 years by the Soviets. It was one of the most heartbreaking things that I have ever seen. I'm with Bush on this one: Democracy is for everyone. They cannot keep it if they are not willing to stand up for it but they need it as much as you and I. It will take them longer to learn how to stand up for it. It is hard to go from saying the wrong thing and getting your head chopped off to screaming the truth from your roof top overnight. It will take time. If we are able to help the Iraqis gain democracy, they will be a beacon to all of the middle east and that will be a fatal blow to Al Qaeda and all terrorists.
Thanks for clarification Dani! I'll go point by point for my response-I have articles too, but it will take me a while to find them. For anyone following this blog, be sure to check back soon!
When I said that the Iraqi's elected Hamas, I didn't mean it literally-I was symbolically referring to a HUGE number of seats that went to anti-American groups. I should have been more clear. I'll find my sources :)
I wasn't thrilled to see Bush posturing and threatening and I wasn't happy to see us invade another country. But I certainly would not be pleased to see us walk away now. You cannot invade a sovereign nation, overthrow their government and then leave them to clean up the mess themselves. It was a HUGE mistake in Guatemala (and elsewhere in Latin America) and it won't work in this situation. Even Javier knows this rule: You make a mess, you clean it up.
We were lucky. The timing, the motivation, economic development, everything came together in a way that helped us put this great experiment together. Rather than trying to replicate what we have, we should be helping them find something that would work for them and their history. It takes a long time to erase and forget the kind of hate and history they have.
I have to agree with LL; although I would love to see us out of Iraq, we need to be cautious. The US has destabilized their country and we need to take some responsibility for that. To me, responsibility involves more than saying "Oops, my bad!" We need to see things through to some kind of stable resolution. Many things in Iraq have improved and we need to give the government a chance to develop some stability and give the people time to develop some faith in that stability to that they will be willing to stand up for it.
The three of you weren't around during the Vietnam war. I was a hard time for our nation. There were lots of mistakes that we could learn from and maybe we could do a better job of helping a new government this time. Maybe we could actually make a difference AND do it more quickly.
Here is one telling turn of events-a law that would have allowed local selections and a redistribution of what is now VERY centralized power in Iraq was vetoed by the presidency. Yikes. This was the law that the Bush administration claimed was the sign of an effective "surge" in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/middleeast/28baghdad.html
and a great analysis here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185374/
Dani, you are right about there being disproportionate numbers of representatives in office-a problem when you are trying for "democracy".
The surge isn't working, or at least, it hasn't worked yet. Notice in the Slate article that several of the major contributors of a decrease in Iraqi violence were in place BEFORE the troop surge was even announced-Bush is taking way too much credit for something he had very little to do with. A natural move for a failing administration.
I disagree that the US needs to stay and clean up this disaster. I think it's unwise (clearly) to have led the country into full-scale civil war. However, I am not convinced that sending our army there indefinitely is helping. The goal of a pull-out timescale, as proposed by Barack and Hillary, it to tell the government that we are serious about them finding solutions on there own, and that they need to do it NOW. As it is, we are telling them to move with one hand, and writing them a blank check with the other. That is BAD behavior management-we aren't doing them any favors with our mixed messages.
We need a clear timescale, we need to stick to it, and the Iraqi officials need to squabble, figure it out, and move on already.
Here is one more article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17246357/
Everyone is pulling out but the US. Shouldn't that suggest something?
OK, Adam, here is a very long winded rebuttal. Sorry but there is a lot to cover here.
For starters, I have to question your sources. All three are extremely liberal and have been questioned about their integrity as unbiased sources of news. The NYT and MSNBC have had real problems with telling the truth. John McCain could tell you all about that. And Slate is so liberal that they even admit to it. http://www.slate.com/id/2143233/
I will ignore the fact that there is no reliable news sources (in my obnoxious opinion) though and address the issues that you brought up.
So, from the top: The Iraqi government vetoed a law giving local governments more power. Yes, this is a setback but I think this is a normal part of governing a larger nation. We have the same problem and that is after we first came here 400 years ago. States rights has been a huge issue in many of our political differences. Many people see it as one of the main issues with abortion. That is part of why the supreme court is such a big deal. Also, it is nice to think of the Civil War being about good people believing in all people being equal but it was about States Rights. Look at how nasty that was. So, be careful what you criticize since we have been there before and if you ask me we are the freest nation on the earth. Also, Talabani said that he still plans on holding elections as planned. Time will tell. I pray for their success.
As for the slate article, they just poorly interpreted other articles. They talked about the NYT article and then talked about a Washington Post article. The Post article talks about local militia men being frustrated with the US. The slate article had part of this sentence but not all of it. "U.S. efforts to manage this fast-growing movement of about 80,000 armed men are still largely effective, but in some key areas the control is fraying." They forgot to put in the largely effective part.
Also, the Post article says "U.S. military officials and commanders say they are seeking to defuse the rising tensions before hard-won U.S. gains are jeopardized. "Despite some of the frustrations, the frictions and the attacks on the Sons of Iraq, they are continuing to volunteer. As an interim solution, it seems to be working well," said Col. Bill Buckner, a senior U.S. military spokesman. "It's clear Iraq remains a fragile security environment. We want to address many of their concerns as best as we can, so that they continue to be part of the solution to the security situation in Iraq.""
So, the way that I see it, the US sees a problem brewing and they are working on fixing it before it gets out of hand. I don't see any judgment problems with this.
The Post also talked about why these militia men are having problems which the Slate article left out. It is because the US and more importantly, the Iraqi police are being careful to make sure that these militia are not simply groups of insurgents. They questioning them and trying to vet them. What do you expect the military to do? They are still working with them.
Another important note from this article is that these men are people who were drawn to these militias because they were trying to get away from what they see as unjustified violence in the insurgent groups. These are people who want peace in their homeland and are willing to stand up and do something about it even if it makes them targets. Part of the problem is that these groups have grown exponentially and they are suffering from growing pains. Wonder why Slate would forget to mention this? Oh, yeah, it doesn't support their liberal position.
As for their being a disproportional number of Kurds, it is a good thing. They are the minority in the country and they do not hold a majority position in the government. They just have a slightly stronger voice. This is a good thing because they need that extra voice. Part of a democracy is to protect the rights of the minority. The other great thing about the Kurds taking such a vigorous interest in their own government is that it spurred the other groups to jump into action. It was one of the best things to happen. And after being attacked with WMD's by Saddam, they deserve to make sure that they are protected again.
As for the major contributors that were in place before the surge, I missed that in the article. What were they? I didn't read it with much focus because it was a poor article so maybe I just skimmed over it.
You are right that we don't have to stay and clean up Iraq. Nobody really stayed and cleaned up Germany after WWI. They didn't have as many factions but there were still a lot of problems. On their side, they worked them out. Their government became more stable. Unfortunately in the process, they created one of the most evil governments in all of history. I would say there is tremendous regret there. We were much wiser to stay in Germany and Japan and Korea after those wars. Military men and women are still being sent to all of those places. It is actually regarded by most military as a fun adventure. Of course, there is less violence in those nations but that is because we all worked for it.
Finally (thank heavens!) it is true that Britain is pulling some of it troops out of Southern Iraq. It is by all accounts stable. The MSNBC article even said so. It made a point to differentiate between Baghdad and Basra. North and South. It sounds like there isn't much need for troops to be in the South. They aren't completely pulling out either. Just part of their military presence. And even if they were to pull out why should we? To quote mothers "If your friend jumps off a cliff, are you going to too?"
We are better off securing Iraq. Iran is watching. Terrorists are waiting. The people of Iraq have just as much right to a good life as you and I do. We started this and we need to finish this right.
Post a Comment