Jim Stillman
Randy InmanIraq: Same old, Same old
July 27th 2007 18:18
I do not claim omniscience; what was clear and inevitable to me last September, ten months ago, remains clear and inevitable. The only thing that has changed is that my views are nearly universally accepted by all save Messrs. Chaney, Rove and Bush. Of the three, only the vice-president is acting on principle, Rove has no principles whatsoever and the president is acting out Albert Einstein’s famous definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Last fall, in another forum, I summed up what I felt to be the dilemma to which we had arrived in Iraq.
The President, his administration and his diminishing supporters, including those in his own party, state that, to leave Iraq precipitously would create more chaos in the middle-east, would result in a loss of credibility with respect to the Unites States and would encourage terrorist states such as Syria, North Korea and Iran to intensify their efforts to support and export terror. Moreover, the inevitable civil war in Iraq would result in even more instability in the region. This would conceivably translate into greater danger to this country. We may now, in 2008, include Pakistan as a potential area of concern as well as the newly strengthened Taliban in Afghanistan.
They are right. I cannot reasonably argue with any of this.
On the other side, remaining in Iraq and “staying the course” does not translate into anything more advantageous to the United States, our values and our future. Taking the president’s position, in the minds of administration critics spreads our resources too thin, preventing us from giving meaningful attention to terrorist-supporting states such as Iran and Syria, terrorist-sheltering regimes as in Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia, and from focusing on the Israel-Palestinian quagmire, endangering the only true democracy in the region. This is to say nothing of the killed and wounded Americas engaged in Iraq, as well as the thousands of civilian Iraqis. As to civil war in Iraq, is has been going on for years.
The opposition to the Iraq war is also absolutely correct, also.
So how do we deal with these obviously exclusive points of view? We must choose the lesser of two horrible choices.
President Bush is determined to accomplish that which cannot and will not be accomplished. I totally accept, for the sake of argument, that the president is sincere in believing that we are engaged in a conflict in Iraq in order to bring “democracy” and “freedom” to the people in that country, thus creating a model for other middle-east countries to emulate. He is convinced that, once the people see the advantages in a United States-type, capitalistic, democracy, they will sua sponte. President Bush has spoken candidly about his belief that God has instructed him to act in this fashion and it is difficult to argue with a recipient of orders from the Almighty.
The problem is, in my view, democracy as we know and appreciate it is not being welcomed by those we consider potential recipients. The Islamic world for the most part looks as western society and does not see freedom and wonder; it sees a society that, in their minds, is decadent, immoral, wasteful and inconsistent with their values. They don’t like us, they don’t envy us, and they don’t want to be like us. They want to destroy all that we stand for. Mr. Bush assumes that, if the Islamic world could only see us as we are, it would make all the difference. Nonsense. That world has checked us out and simply doesn’t want our system.
Is the western world in a battle for survival?
Absolutely, but attempting to focus on bringing western-style democracy to Iraq by blowing the place from the 15th century back to the 6th century is counter-productive and a horrid waste of resources and the lives of our young people. . Democracy will not take root in cultures that have not prepared for it, either through generations of experience (such as the United States) or by imposition on a nation that is well educated and willing (as Japan after 1945). And even if it were possible to create a democratically elected government in this region, it is no guarantee that we will be happy with the result. The Palestinians had a free election and choose a terrorist mob, Hamas. Iran freely elected a terrorist government that is developing nuclear weapons. Lebanon has a parliament in which freely elected representatives are part of Hezbollah. Afghanistan is reverting to tribal fiefdoms and the Taliban. Pakistan, notwithstanding is alleged support, is decidedly not our friend.
In spite of Mr. Bush’s instructions from on high, we are not going to bring democracy to the third world anytime in the near future.
I have a difficult time in imagining democracy in a culture where people celebrate victory or defeat by shooting bullets straight up into the air; I have a hard time in rationalizing a culture where ski-masks are worn, in desert heat, whenever a gathering is held on a street. These are cultures so far removed from the West that, unless they grow and advance greatly over the near future, there will be no common ground on which to negotiate. And I cannot conceive of these developments anytime soon.
We must, first, separate Iraq from the overall battle against religious zealots, the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, the groups and individuals who are responsible for terror attacks in Great Britain, Indonesia and Europe and, without doubt, will attack us in the future. The war in Iraq, ill conceived and ill managed has made our safety less certain.
Carl Hiaasen recently wrote in the Miami Herald, “This is the story of the war in a nutshell -- misbegotten, misrepresented and mismanaged. Stoned on his own delusions, the president still talks of installing a functioning democracy in a country throttled by civil war and aflame with ancient religious grievances. Newly doubt-ridden Republicans in Congress speechify about a 'new direction,’ but do nothing. Democrats call for a staged withdrawal, but can't muster the votes to make it happen. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government remains paralyzed and rudderless. Car bombs continue to explode in open markets, killing and maiming innocents by the score. The Shiites and Sunnis keep on kidnapping, torturing and executing each other.”
Not only is it impossible to “win” in Iraq, whatever that means, our actions have been counter-productive. Almost six years after the 9/11 attacks, it's more plain than ever that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to the jihadist movement.
According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by our own government agencies, the threat of future terrorist plots against this country has grown worse, partly because Islamic extremists worldwide have been galvanized by the U.S. presence in Iraq.
As for the ''war on terror,'' the reports offer almost nothing that would justify the president's robotic pronouncements of progress. Far from being dismantled, al Qaeda now has its first-ever foothold in Iraq, thanks to the chaos and rancor created by the U.S. occupation. After years at the top of the world's most-wanted list, al Qaeda's two preeminent murderers, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri, are still alive and directing operations from mountain hide-outs along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
On the Afghanistan side, the ruthless Taliban are making a huge comeback, financed by the same booming opium harvest that is juicing the world's appetite for heroin and next door, the government of Pakistan, though nominally cooperative with the United States, has forfeited control of large territories to tribal lords, some of whom are known to be sympathetic to al Qaeda.
In my next post, I suggest a roadmap for the future. How do we get out of this mess? What must the United States and its government do to protect us? Where do we go from here?
Stayed tuned.
Last fall, in another forum, I summed up what I felt to be the dilemma to which we had arrived in Iraq.
The President, his administration and his diminishing supporters, including those in his own party, state that, to leave Iraq precipitously would create more chaos in the middle-east, would result in a loss of credibility with respect to the Unites States and would encourage terrorist states such as Syria, North Korea and Iran to intensify their efforts to support and export terror. Moreover, the inevitable civil war in Iraq would result in even more instability in the region. This would conceivably translate into greater danger to this country. We may now, in 2008, include Pakistan as a potential area of concern as well as the newly strengthened Taliban in Afghanistan.
They are right. I cannot reasonably argue with any of this.
On the other side, remaining in Iraq and “staying the course” does not translate into anything more advantageous to the United States, our values and our future. Taking the president’s position, in the minds of administration critics spreads our resources too thin, preventing us from giving meaningful attention to terrorist-supporting states such as Iran and Syria, terrorist-sheltering regimes as in Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia, and from focusing on the Israel-Palestinian quagmire, endangering the only true democracy in the region. This is to say nothing of the killed and wounded Americas engaged in Iraq, as well as the thousands of civilian Iraqis. As to civil war in Iraq, is has been going on for years.
The opposition to the Iraq war is also absolutely correct, also.
So how do we deal with these obviously exclusive points of view? We must choose the lesser of two horrible choices.
President Bush is determined to accomplish that which cannot and will not be accomplished. I totally accept, for the sake of argument, that the president is sincere in believing that we are engaged in a conflict in Iraq in order to bring “democracy” and “freedom” to the people in that country, thus creating a model for other middle-east countries to emulate. He is convinced that, once the people see the advantages in a United States-type, capitalistic, democracy, they will sua sponte. President Bush has spoken candidly about his belief that God has instructed him to act in this fashion and it is difficult to argue with a recipient of orders from the Almighty.
The problem is, in my view, democracy as we know and appreciate it is not being welcomed by those we consider potential recipients. The Islamic world for the most part looks as western society and does not see freedom and wonder; it sees a society that, in their minds, is decadent, immoral, wasteful and inconsistent with their values. They don’t like us, they don’t envy us, and they don’t want to be like us. They want to destroy all that we stand for. Mr. Bush assumes that, if the Islamic world could only see us as we are, it would make all the difference. Nonsense. That world has checked us out and simply doesn’t want our system.
Is the western world in a battle for survival?
Absolutely, but attempting to focus on bringing western-style democracy to Iraq by blowing the place from the 15th century back to the 6th century is counter-productive and a horrid waste of resources and the lives of our young people. . Democracy will not take root in cultures that have not prepared for it, either through generations of experience (such as the United States) or by imposition on a nation that is well educated and willing (as Japan after 1945). And even if it were possible to create a democratically elected government in this region, it is no guarantee that we will be happy with the result. The Palestinians had a free election and choose a terrorist mob, Hamas. Iran freely elected a terrorist government that is developing nuclear weapons. Lebanon has a parliament in which freely elected representatives are part of Hezbollah. Afghanistan is reverting to tribal fiefdoms and the Taliban. Pakistan, notwithstanding is alleged support, is decidedly not our friend.
In spite of Mr. Bush’s instructions from on high, we are not going to bring democracy to the third world anytime in the near future.
I have a difficult time in imagining democracy in a culture where people celebrate victory or defeat by shooting bullets straight up into the air; I have a hard time in rationalizing a culture where ski-masks are worn, in desert heat, whenever a gathering is held on a street. These are cultures so far removed from the West that, unless they grow and advance greatly over the near future, there will be no common ground on which to negotiate. And I cannot conceive of these developments anytime soon.
We must, first, separate Iraq from the overall battle against religious zealots, the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, the groups and individuals who are responsible for terror attacks in Great Britain, Indonesia and Europe and, without doubt, will attack us in the future. The war in Iraq, ill conceived and ill managed has made our safety less certain.
Carl Hiaasen recently wrote in the Miami Herald, “This is the story of the war in a nutshell -- misbegotten, misrepresented and mismanaged. Stoned on his own delusions, the president still talks of installing a functioning democracy in a country throttled by civil war and aflame with ancient religious grievances. Newly doubt-ridden Republicans in Congress speechify about a 'new direction,’ but do nothing. Democrats call for a staged withdrawal, but can't muster the votes to make it happen. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government remains paralyzed and rudderless. Car bombs continue to explode in open markets, killing and maiming innocents by the score. The Shiites and Sunnis keep on kidnapping, torturing and executing each other.”
Not only is it impossible to “win” in Iraq, whatever that means, our actions have been counter-productive. Almost six years after the 9/11 attacks, it's more plain than ever that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to the jihadist movement.
According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by our own government agencies, the threat of future terrorist plots against this country has grown worse, partly because Islamic extremists worldwide have been galvanized by the U.S. presence in Iraq.
As for the ''war on terror,'' the reports offer almost nothing that would justify the president's robotic pronouncements of progress. Far from being dismantled, al Qaeda now has its first-ever foothold in Iraq, thanks to the chaos and rancor created by the U.S. occupation. After years at the top of the world's most-wanted list, al Qaeda's two preeminent murderers, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri, are still alive and directing operations from mountain hide-outs along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
On the Afghanistan side, the ruthless Taliban are making a huge comeback, financed by the same booming opium harvest that is juicing the world's appetite for heroin and next door, the government of Pakistan, though nominally cooperative with the United States, has forfeited control of large territories to tribal lords, some of whom are known to be sympathetic to al Qaeda.
In my next post, I suggest a roadmap for the future. How do we get out of this mess? What must the United States and its government do to protect us? Where do we go from here?
Stayed tuned.
| 26 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
