Okay, so I'm watching the news with particular interest this weekend due to the outcome of last week's elections.
Of course, at the top of everyone's agenda is the war in Iraq and whether we pull out our troops now, or a little a time, or finish what was started. (Quite honestly, I'm not real sure what was started: were we suppose to obliterate terrorists or help assist in the set up of a new democratic government or both or just act as full time policemen?)
While watching all the opinions and such, I started thinking about the culture of the Iraqi people. How can democracy work in a culture wherein historically when someone opposes an opinion, they realistically put themselves in danger of being killed? Here in the US, although we cannot say "never," for the most part we don't kill our politicians if they don't hold the same beliefs as we do. Our "guns" are our ballots. We can "take 'em out" by not re-electing them. And if someone, whether elected or not, kills a politician then they are a criminal, not "passionate for their cause." In the U.S., according to the law, homicide is not justifiable.
If we are over there trying to "train" them in all the logistics of a democratic government, which from what I hear on the news, the Iragi people seem "unwilling" to continue the efforts required to maintain democracy once the American troops are withdrawn.
I am absolutely against any more of our men and women dying over there for a government that will not stand on its on without our presence. I am also against terrorists thinking that it is a free for all in the U.S. and they can come over here and kill OUR citizens because they see us as capitalist infidels who should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Any and all conversation is welcomed on this topic because truly I am not really clear on what it is we are trying to do, what it is we SHOULD do, and if bipartisan politics can be put aside for the best interests of our country and enlisted personnel.
(who me? did I say something about "my last political post"? hmmm, no recollection.)
About Me
- jLow
- Seminole, Texas, United States
- "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
5 comments:
One of the wisest things I've heard so far is that our goal shouldn't be "democracy" but "stability". I hate to say it, but at this point it seems to me that its out best option.
First My belief is that Iraq was not the place to take our battle with terrorism. but that is water under the bridge. so Bygones.
The second mistake we made was not using an overwhelming occupation force as was recomended by the brass that was replaced for making the recomendation. Complete and utter disarmament and subjegation of the population would have gone far to stabilize the country and allowed for an even headed slide into a demorcratic state. That is also water under the bridge.
If we pull out it will be Saigon 75 or something akin to it.
If we ratchet up the violence then we must do so in a manner that disarms the population and it will be far more violent than it could have been had we done it right to begin with.
If we allow the status quo nothing will change and there will be bombings and murder and deception as the various factions vie for power and oil wealth.
Frankly I do not see any diplomatic solution or UN Sanctions actually changing a thing.
Perhaps we should just walk away. It seems that that might be what happens anyway. What a depression thought
Alan - I fear that stability will only happen with US troops permanently stationed there. It sounds like Iraq is incapable of stability if left to its own devices.
Eric - I think you probably got it right. There is no way to go back and do it the way it should have been done in the first place.
The catch-22 is do we walk away allowing a "survival of the fittest" over there or do we continue to try to take up for the little guy so that the bully doesn't pulverize him?
My problem with walking away is that I know there are families just like mine in Iraq. Husbands and wives just trying to live their lives peacefully and raising their children the best they can. Except they have terrorist boots on their throats.
Unless there is a miraculous bit of diplomacy that takes place what choices do we have? Really would be to send over 400 thousand - Million troops and totally overwhelm the region with an unstoppable presence and then start over from scratch.
But we do not have a million troops to do the job with. No one does.
And the only thing that will succeed at this point is Force. These guys have lost all sense of conformity and are running roughshod over thier own country.
Meh I could go on and on but I just do not have an answer that makes me feel good. Mine is very draconian.
The occupation of Iraq was never really about democracy. It was about empire building. Hopefully, we've learned that democracy only happens when the people want it and are clamoring for it.
It's a sad mess and I don't have any answers. So I pray for the troops and hope that the Bakker study group comes up with something that is workable. And that our President has the sense to implement their recommendations.
Post a Comment