More reality statements on Iraq--not clouded by Political BS

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who was one of the many that 100% supported George Bush on Iraq up to the election had this to say immediately after the election. It was right on one of Conservative Talk radio's favorite shows:

Guess the only way you can get the truth out of this administration and its puppets is after an election

 

I don't like Bill for a ton of reasons.

But another note....

He's not remotely conservative. I think he's actually rated 34/100 for a lifetime..from the Conservative Union. The Conservative Union doesn't come-up with a perfect standard of what's conservative, but our former 'leaders' are far from Conservative ideals. They're 'Republicans' at best.

This same assholes trying to push forward amnesty and expanding immigration. He's retiring soon (I believe), so he's basically trying to smear shit on his constituents.

 

The idea, I think, that it is a lack of character or loyalty and not a sincere reevaluation of the Bush Administration's culpability in this war grows weaker when it is longstanding neocons themselves coming out in such widespread condemnation.

Kenneth Adelman and Others:

I have never changed my mind on this: I mistook this President's early resolve for a sign of character, and I applauded him; I now believe it is a sign of his limitations, limitations that have wrought this disaster. I believe this administration has from the start supplanted statesmanship with inflexible dogma, to the detriment of itself, the American people, the service people fighting on its behalf, and its place in the community of nations.

The article linked above goes on to say something by Joshua Muravchik. After saying that neocons cannot blame Bush solely, but must share the blame with him, he goes on to say:

Which touches on something that I have posted on this forum in the past, and which has troubled me from the beginning, given what I know of the region, however modest: "Democracy" is not a panacea, and it is not a universal phenomenon; "western democracy" is not a universal concept that can be transplanted to and seeded in all parts of the globe, in toto. There are centuries of traditional power systems and cross-cutting cleavages intact that make it extremely difficult to achieve "democracy," especially by caveat. Simply putting ballot boxes in place, a middle eastern nation will not miraculously join with the west to become a democratic state.

 

I don't judge politicians on their character,...I like to judge the results. I think on any other day of the week, Bush or Clinton would be nice house guests...that is where I apply character. Simple things.

I never liked the idea of 'democracy'...in it's exact meaning. I'm tend to believe that you restrict power on everyone, and you only allow it when it's a supermajority or it's reasonable/necessary. I believe our Constitution was orginally designed in that fashion, and really wasn't a product of the people...but a handful of Enlightened intellectuals.

I don't think, now, nor even then, a society as a whole could come-up with something that great. Therefore I smite at the word democracy, because it's a misleading word, and it insults the fabric of our origins.

I don't even think people liken to our Constitutional Republic.

As for Iraq, their view of government will differ most definitely. That region of the world hasn't seen a sane government for sometime, now...so it's understandable.

We barely became what we became. In some respects, we probably shouldn't have...atleast immediately. The compromise of our begins, led to our future wars, and the slow dissolving process of our Constitution.

 

By "Character" I am speaking for the willingness to take needed action. Let me call it "culture" on an individual level.

And yet over precisely this, we have committed ourselves to an intractable war. Wars should be waged over national interests, and nothing else. Not to make the world "safe for democracy," as in 100 years ago, or "make the world a democracy," as in now.

I'm sorry, I am not following you here, Rick.

 

I find it really funny about conservatives talking about the Iraq war, instead of admitting they were wrong it was a bad idea, and we shouldn't have gone in there, they say they blame the way the war was run.

Like somehow if Rumsfield had run it right the war would have been a big success.

 

Good points, but didn't Iraqis vote on their constitution...one defined by islamic law which was quite a shock for many in the west? That people are actually allowed to vote may be the only real part of democracy under their constitution, when by definition of their constitution, it's constructed upon the foundations of islam. islam itself is not conducive to democracy and freedom under such oppressive law is limited. Still, it was their choice and they made it.

I'm not sure there is as much "democracy" as we wish there was. I know I was disappointed when they constructed their constitution on the laws of islam, which in and of itself, is not very democratic.

 

That's a good point, Gtech, but I think the premise itself - the idea of basing a doctrine of foreign policy on mounting a "western" democracy in a region so structurally unsuited for it - is flawed. I recall the President making the point that with democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, this would be the seed of transformation in the region. And I think basing foreign policy on such a concept is flawed, as it doesn't take into account the very things we are now seeing. Whether Islamic or otherwise, I don't believe a constitutional democracy will work in the area. Much as I wish otherwise.

 

I'm not convinced it's a "western democracy" when their respective constitutions are based on islamic law. It's "a form" of democracy, when the people have the opportunity to vote, but I wouldn't say "western democracy."

Earlpearl noted this wisdom once, which I thought was something really worth thinking about...that they may not be able to handle freedom and democracy. The issue is not with democracy so much, as I see it, but the minority who wish to prevent it from happening in the first place. We have the minority (extremists) who are fighting and killing their local countrymen to prevent the majority from having something the extremists do not want them to have. I can't help but think that's something worth fighting for. Given the military meeting not only it's recruiting goals, but also reenlistment/retention goals, it would seem our military believes it's "the good fight" as well.

Absent military presence, we'd see death and destruction on a scale unimaginable. Of course, this is debatable, but one thing I think we could all agree on here is, put it to the Iraqi people to vote. They have the capability of voting. Let them vote on it. If they want the US to go and let terrorists take over, then more power to them. I just can't help but think that's not what they want. Not the majority, at least.

 

The better question will be, why USA will be looking for democratic beacon in middle east or anywhere else in the world? This can sound good as PR speech but has no base in reality. Look at the history of US foreign policy since world war and you will see that USA has fought any democratic movement all over the world from middle east (IRAN, mosadeq government) to Chile (Allende) to.... The only thing that USA is interested, is to have governments in place that serve USA economical and military interest.

 

It could have been a subtly different, had we entered from Turkey. Plus there's non-pc ways of ending the insurgency.

 

I think this is the problem, though, brother. We attempted to instill democracy in a land with underlying social cleavages ready to blow, kept latent by Hussein's tyranny; our presence and push for constitutional democracy only set the match - much like the concept of the Revolution of Rising Expectations, "democracy" only makes all the more salient the underlying tensions ready to blow...under the regime, who will win, who will lose? It makes it patently evident. I wonder how minority it is....it seems to me the sunni-shia cleavage is deeply pervasive and we blew it in not predicting this would happen.

 

You are totally wrong and brainwashed by the propaganda. How do you install a democracy by closing the newspapers, putting the opposition in the prison, import different exiled Iraqis that are working for different secret services from outside of the country, call them the government and in top of everything else tell them that they can not decide about anything unless it is approved by American administration in Iraq?
This was never about democracy.

 

Gworld, I find in the political world that people, ideas and actions are rarely totally wrong, or totally right. Social behavior is too complex for that easy out. You can believe what you will, of course, and insult me by ascribing my thoughts to brainwashing, but I don't buy any party line, think deeply on things generally and am comfortable in my judgement. Do you have something substantive to say?

 

I base my judgments on reality and evidence and not on propaganda and wishful thinking.

Evidence: USA has fought and tried to stop every democratic movements all the over world since the end of WWII. The means have varied from political assassination, dirty wars to direct wars and coups. Examples, Chile, Cuba, Iran, El salvador,......

Reality: There are many countries in south America, Asia and Africa that are under direct control of USA and the De facto government of these countries are the American embassy in that country. If USA has any interest in making a democratic beacon in any place in the world, why they don't start with countries that they directly control by removing their own puppet dictators?

As you can see the evidence and reality does not support the propaganda about making a democratic beacon.

 

We are talking about Iraq, are we not? If you want to discuss geopolitics, and the U.S. role in it, we can do that as well, but lumping everything together in some sort of grand theory is not helpful, I don't believe. I prefer to look at each instance, and analyze it, with the best evidence available. (In brief, history tells me, at any rate, that the post-WWII, post-colonial countries were the unfortunate playground over which the cold war was fought, and rarely was a "democracy" sought or established without the heavy hand of east and west, vying for power, control or influence; there are also structural legacies stemming from the nature of the colonial system itself, that varied from North to South, for instance, that affected later developments - path dependencies that cannot be ignored. All this has nothing to do with the current issue, Iraq).

I'll say again: I don't agree with this war. I believe it was the wrongheaded thing to do, for reasons I've stated. But the fact remains Iraqi citizens do not answer to Saddam Hussein any longer, and have a (desperately shaky) parliamentary democracy in place. Do you dispute this fact?

Now, this, with the sunni-shia cleavage broiling under the surface, has resulted in the explosion now seen. Another, unfortunate, fact. As I've said.

 

You are an intelligent person and I am sure that you know that foreign policy decisions are not formed in a vacuum. Let's look at facts. A year after the killings that Saddam now is convicted to death for, Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq and was shaking hands with him and CIA was supplying intelligence on weekly basis to his government.
There are many puppet dictators in different countries right now that are supported by US government and this is the administration that made secret prisons and tried every possible way to get around Geneva convention so they can freely torture people and keep them in prison for indefinite time without any charges. In light of all these facts, do you want us to believe that these same people one day looked at the map and said poor people in Iraq that are suffering Saddam regime, let's go to Iraq and make it a beacon of democracy.

There is no Sunni-shia cleavage. They were living in Iraq without any problem, they are living in Iran without any problem, They are living in Syria without any problem. The Sunni-Shia myth is just a cover up for the civil war and different groups that are fighting for power.

 

I agree with you. Foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum. Or, as I already said,

I am not talking about U.S. motives, which we could go into another time as this is not germane to the fact, again: there is a nascent parliamentary democracy in place, which only sharpened the divisions in place, underlying Iraqi society, kept under control by Hussein's B'aathist regime. Now, given your statement:

I don't think there's much more we can discuss and I have to confess I'm not really interested in debating you on this any longer. I'm sorry, Gworld, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. This is basic fact, historically rooted. A quick search will provide a good body of research to comb. Off the top, Council on Foreign Relations:

Sectarian Issue in the Middle East

 

I hate to break it to you but there was a Parliament and election under Saddam. There is a Parliament and Election in Iran and there are members of Parliament in Iran who are Sunni, Jew and Christian. All these Parliaments including the present Parliament in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy and it is only used to legitimize the government.

Books and knowledge is good but it can also be misleading when it is not checked against reality and the facts. Anyone can claim anything they want in the books but how do you explain that the same Sunni and Shia groups were living in Iraq without any problem and presently living in Iran and Syria without any conflicts. The books have to explain the world and be based on reality, not make up a reality that is not supported by the evidence of real life. Look at the history of these countries, look at their culture, talk to Muslim people that you meet and base your opinion on the real facts and not made for political agenda "intellectual" papers.

 

Yes, you are quite right - re: the parliaments under Hussein and the Ayatollahs. And not only under Hussein, but under Hitler, Stalin, and any number of other like regimes. Please make the comparison between Hussein's "chamber of the people" and the parliament now in place a bit clearer for this brainwashed mind.

You would like me to explain the lack of widespread, overt sunni-shia conflict under Saddam's regime? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that one?

Since I've never lived in Iraq, and only researched middle eastern political economy at Berkeley, I can only rely on the research materials I've drawn on from like-brainwashed fellows. Perhaps you can elucidate further your life in Iraq that allows you your firsthand knowledge?