Dr. Thomas Sowell: Having politicians micro-managing a war has been a formula for disaster, whether in Vietnam or Iraq. Our troops have already been under too many restrictions as to what they could or couldn't do under the "rules of engagement" in Iraq.
BS! The invasion and the toppling of Saddam's regime were done with great effectiveness and efficiency by America's military warriors. The post invasion effort hasn't shown itself to a winner thus far and may never be a legitimate success.
The US military is designed to fight battles and win wars. The US military is not designed to be a police force to the world. Nor is the US military meant to be at the forefront of any nation building effort. And having the US military work to spread democracy to the Islamic world, is an effort in futility.
We can't run from this fight. The US has to win the battle for Iraq. The fact remains, after 4+ years, nothing has really changed in Iraq. The Bush admin would have been better off to have approached this with a total war mentality and not allowed its efforts to turn into a war of political correctness.
Bringing democracy [in our image] to Iraq is not the principle reason we are in Iraq. It is not necessary as long as a stable Iraq emerges that is an ally in the WOT. It is up to the Iraqis to seize the opportunity we have given them.
Sowell, as usual, is spot on.
I don’t see a true, self-sufficient democracy coming in Iraq for a long, long, long time, if ever. For one thing, democracy is incompatible with Islam. Secondly, the only reason that Iraq was a single nation was because it was held together with an iron fist. Without Saddam’s brutal rule to keep things in check, the long-held anomisity among the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis is allowed to bloom. It will be a long time, if ever, before those three become one. Middle-Easterners seem to have very long memories of past injustices, and they hold grudges for...well, forever and ever, Amen.
This is why Iraq will be a very long, painful process, and why Bush & Company have no real exit strategy. You can’t just expect to establish a “beacon of democracy” in five, ten or possibly even 30-40 years on a (lack of) foundation like that.
Then you have fighters funded by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia doing their level best to ensure that Western-style democracy does not take root there.
As much as I’d like to see this “nation-building” venture succeed and Iraq turn into a stable, democratic ally of the US, I have one hell of a lot of doubts that it will ever actually happen — no matter how much time we give this.
I’m all for the surge in troops, I am against any suggestion of pulling out now, and I think that now that we’re there and we are trying to do this, we had better be prepared to be in for a long, long haul and work to finish the job. I just wish I could convince myself that “finishing the job” is a plausible outcome. I’m not even sure I know exactly what “finishing the job” even means in this context.
“The great tragic failure in Iraq has been political failure, not military failure. At the heart of that failure have been two lofty notions — “nation-building” and democracy.”
The goals were high, and perhaps too high. I believe that the democratic nation-building was an attempt to address the root of the problem (as many so often tell us we need to do).
If the Iraqi’s don’t step up; they will lose their chance at a democracy. That will be tragic.
Problem in Iraq is ... we moved from too timid to being too ambitious.
In 1991, we should have at least supported a semi-autonomous southern Iraq (along with a semi-autonomous northern or Kurdish region).
But, no, instead we settled for an armistice that kept Saddam in power, and in control of the oil fields.
Then, in 2003, we had the idea that the country could be transformed over-night into a multi-party democracy. O.K., so tell me where in the entire history of the world was such a thing accomplished?
As Thomas Sowell points out, the blooming of democracy in the Far East, in South Korea and Taiwan, only took place after a period of time.
Same thing in Spain and in Chile.
I could point out many other examples. And, these are the success stories.
Contrariwise, I could point out dozens of examples of where a government was formed by the holding of an election by outside powers, or by a regime in transition, only to see the country slide first into a the control of a demogogic, semi-authorian ruler, and then into a full-scale authoritarian dictator.
Bearing these things in mind, I would say two things:
First, we should be quick to CONSOLIDATE the advance of liberty and democracy whereever that happens in the world, because while we have an interest in the whole world being free, we can’t really control or dictate when this will happen. This goes for our friends in eastern Europe, in India, in the relatively free small countries of the Persian Gulf, and other places. More to the point, this goes for our friends in Kurdish Iraq.
Second, we shouldn’t be so quick to criticize the authoritarian rulers in places like China that are being slow to open their society, teach their people about freedom, and so forth. The path of slow and steady may be much better than the path of premature elections.