And yes, we put the puppet gov't in there, but what we are helping set in motion is the ability for Iraqis to elect their own leaders in a such a way that shia, sunni, and kurds have a representation in that government.
You will note that for this to be possible, it will not be a democracy, it is what is being called a representational democracy. And indeed it is representational of the people we think should be represented in power and not necessarily who the population thinks should be in power.
I am not going to argue that that is not a practical plan to prevent a rise in power for Islamic extremism, just that our professed ideal is shown to be bankrupt. It is not freedom and democracy which will "end extremism" it is forcing a moderate government representing minority will over majority demands which will quell extremism.
How so?
The list of people to be voted on are not fully their choice. That is a chinese menu form of voting, and we run the restaurant. Those vetted for office are not those which will contradict our policies.
And let's say a decade or so down the line they are a bit more free in their choice of gov't. Let us also say that the Israeli Palestinian issue is still going on. What will prevent the people of Iraq from voting in anti-Israeli leadership that would support measures against Israel, or allow the free people to support Palestinian causes directly? The answer... we will. Won't we?
It keeps being mentioned how Hussein supported terrorists, and his end will change all that. Yet that is a "black wash" of the issue. He did not support AQ (he was in direct opposition with them) and the terrorists in question had mainly to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That was not something he convinced the Iraqi population to believe or mispent their money on. That is a very popular issue for the Iraqi people and getting rid of Hussein was not going to change that at all.
A free people may have even more chances to support that cause, right? Or will we be forced to stop it? Let's say an anti-Israeli group sets up a base in the new Iraq. Won't we demand they end it even if it is popular to Iraqis? Won't we have to do something about it if they don't?
What if they want to build up a strong military again? What if they want to put into place some strong fundmentalist Islamic laws? What'll be interesting is to see fundie Xians demanding such laws go in place in the US, while decrying their backward nature in Iraq (going back to the 7th century and all that).
Oh no, it is not hypocritical at all. It is simply 2 opposing ideas that are in conflict. We think the idea of freedom via democracy is better than terrorism. They think a fundamentalist islamic state is better.
Yes it is hypocrisy. Remember I can say we have a right to say we think our vision of their future is preferable, the problem is we can't say they are the bad guys for doing what they are doing to make their preference known.
I just laid out the arguments that we have now set in place as precedent. Just look at the Bush doctrine. I guess most people don't understand what a precedent is. They do get to avail themselves of the same principle. That principle, which was used to justify Iraq gives them every MORAL AND "LEGAL" RIGHT to go in with the means available to them and do what they are doing.
To say they are doing something we feel is wrong, besides methods (which I will note are used by us when necessary), is hypocrisy.
Oh but nice propaganda piece. We believe in freedom via democracy? We did not go in and remove Hussein through democracy. We are not allowing a true democratic government to take shape. We will not allow them to express their freedom if it conflicts with US regional interests... right?
And not all insurgents are terrorists, nor do they all want a fundamentalist Islamic state. I love how out one side of your mouth you say they want Fundie Islam, and out the other side you talk about the Baathist elements.
Why not talk out the front of your mouth and say, "We cannot categorize the insurgency as any one particular movement with any particular agenda or tactics It is a collective of very different groups with a range of motives and tactics. Some are foreign borne and fundamentalist and use terror, some are Iraqi national nonfundie and restrict attacks to US or foreign assets."?
But we've been dealing with terrorism for 30+ years!
We've supported terrorists for the last 30 years and will continue to do so. Terrorism is a method. It is even used by US radicals as well and we are not attacking parts of the US are we?
Man you are a laugh. AQ was begun as a direct offshoot of the terrorist training we gave Iraqis in order to form an insurgency against Soviet forces which were (ironically enough) trying to reform the populace away from radical Islam. We had to deal with terrorism for 30 years? We created one of the biggest monsters we are fighting right now, including both UBL and Iraq. Less than 20 years ago THEY WERE THE GOOD GUYS!!!! Remember?
Or maybe you were too young. Yeah I remember being against them, and Bush Sr and Reagan and Rumsfeld were saying what great people they all were and how looney leftist all the human rights groups were. Now we are digging up the mass graves and staring wide eyed at the tactics we taught them to use againts our enemies and saying
we've been dealing with terrorism for 30+years???
Come on.
Are we both talking about terrorists here?
Well yes and no. Remember the moral rule now is that the ends justify the means. That is exactly what you set out. That means that no matter how horrific an act seems, if it is justified by the end we have to say cest le guerre and move on. That is of course what we are expecting everyone else to do when they show images of what we have done and say how horrific they are to them... right?
I love how you keep harping on the group which is kidnapping people and chopping off heads. That is one group, not them all. Wouldn't that make them like the AbuGhraib section of the insurgency? Not all would like that, but they do not have direct say over that one group.
Remember what our own original statement was for how this war was going to begin? Shock and awe. People would be shocked and awed at the devastation we would bring. Those in charge would have to comply or more carnage would ensue. Is that not simply what that one terrorist group is doing?
While methods differ, and perhaps that leaves a different visceral taste in the mouth, the ends are the same and so they are just the competition and it comes down to selecting brand A or brand B.
You see, this is why I disliked the Iraq War. This is what we have allowed to be created in the world. Unless of course you simply follow ad hoc reasoning, in which case it is simply might makes right which makes us right, and will for some time to come.
The former Bathists? That is the party we tossed out on its ear.
Come on. Not all Iraqis fighting US occupation are Baathists either. Why are you incapable of admitting that some regular Iraqis really don't like having been invaded, innocents killed, and the chaos of criminality (criminals are yet another section of the insurgency), as well as what they view as a puppet gov't?
I am of course not suggesting that most Iraqis feel that way, or should feel that way. Neither am I trying to suggest that the majority of insurgents are this kind of people (especially the ones targeting other Iraqis). But I think it is disengenuous every time it is suggested that the insurgency is some easy charicature. It is not just foreign, it is not just baathist, it is not just antidemocracy and freedom, it is not just terrorist.
We opened pandora's box with the invasion and we are facing a very very complex situation. The more we try and act like it is very simple, IMHO the worse it will be for us over the long haul.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2