berberry writes:
Even in this current state, with insurgent attacks become more and more common and more and more deadly, I have felt that we should remain in Iraq until the mess we created is cleaned up. But as I was listening to the president bravely speak to that angry crowd of hostile liberals like Bill Moyers, I wanted to hear him say something new, something on which to hang our hopes for Iraq's future. But all we got was the same old tired "stay the course" bullshit.
I sympathize with your point and if the polls are any indication, so do an increasing portion of the US populous. It’s a tough call and everyone who initially supported the war has their limit beyond which, based on history and current events, they decide that staying the course is no longer the best path. I’m not there yet. The time may come when I change my mind, but for now I am reminded how difficult the task is.
We were in Japan and Germany for 7 years after WWII and those were favorable circumstances, i.e. little or no insurgency. We have, per capita, about the same number of troops in Iraq, (140,000) as we did in Japan, (200,000 after two years). So at this point in time, I’m inclined to side with the Administration. For now.
I will also agree that stay the course and similar mantra is tiring. Bush should do a better job of laying out the specifics. He should quit selling the war, he needs to sell the progress. Aside from Bush, part of the problem may be that we only see sporadic reports in Iraq and those are nearly always negative. The positive progress is muted and often not reported. I don’t necessarily blame the media for this although they are certainly complicit. It’s simply a matter of bad news outselling good news as everyone knows.
I vaguely remember, (as I show my age), reports of activity during the Vietnam War on the tele. It seemed that every night we would see a graphic of North and South Vietnam with the DMZ line separating the two. The graphics might have little star bursts to show particularly active combat areas. It was a running permanent segment on the nightly news. The body count, various operations, enemy tactics, progress or lack thereof, etc. This lack of progress, night after night, year after year on the TV was probably just as effective in turning America against the war as were all the protest marches.
My point is that more information on a regular basis of exactly what is happening in Iraq aside from just the reports of death and destruction would be helpful in arguing for a continued US presence until the Iraqi’s can handle it themselves. Vietnam is not Iraq. Unlike Vietnam, there is real progress in Iraq that simply doesn’t get adequate media coverage.
Perhaps if it still seemed possible that we might see a stable, modern government with respect for civil liberties established I might be more opposed to pulling out, but did you hear Rumsfeld's comments about the Iraqi constitution? I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it runs something like "let's not worry what the constitution says or doesn't say, let's just get something passed that can be amended later". That's a helluva far cry from the strong commitment to women's rights and secular government we were hearing about just a couple weeks ago.
I believe here is the
Rumsfeld quote you refer to:
quote:
"The constitution to be successful, has to take into account the legitimate interests, and fashion a balance in the federalism aspect of it, and in the other key things that they're worried about, so that they'll all nod and say, 'Well, I really don't like it. It's not perfect. But it's good enough. And, by golly, if we have to amend it, lots of other countries have amended their constitutions. If there's something we made a mistake on, we'll just have to fix it later,"
***sigh*** Rumsfeld, meh, I’m about --— this close, (pinching salt between fingers) to calling for his resignation. Abu Ghraib, post war planning, and comments like these. Don’t get me wrong, I believe he is correct, but jeez, he has no political savvy.
Drafting a constitution is hard work, takes time, and requires considerable compromise on all parties involved. America took 13 years with an ongoing process of amendments. It would be a great victory for the democratic process if Iraq could finalize a constitution. But it is not necessary for governance.
A final written constitution would be great, but lots of other countries get along without one, (Britain for example). The British Constitution is unwritten, unlike the constitution in America. It is uncodified in the sense that there is no single document that can be classed as Britain's constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. Supporters of this type of constitution believe that it allows for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems. This may be the best form for Iraq. We Americans shouldn’t make the mistake of dictating the specific form of democracy. IMO, its should be sufficient that it is democratic.
I think it is important to get the governing fundamentals agreed to with the acknowledgement that further refinements, (amendments or other documents), can and will occur over time. I don’t mean to imply that your points regarding women’s rights and a secular government are not important, it's just a matter of priorities. Iraqi energies should be directed toward organizing a government, building a security force, assisting reconstruction, and fighting the insurgency.
™ Version 4.2
