February 01, 2005
A SPOONFUL OF SUGAR SUPPOSEDLY HELPS:
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? (MARK BROWN, February 1, 2005, Chicago SUN-TIMES)
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
This is what a Decent Left would sound like, were one possible. On the other hand, the blistering nitwits who lead the congressional Democrats chose the past few weeks to blast the very policy that made democracy in Iraq possible. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2005 12:25 PM
"...and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people..."
I scarcely know where to begin when unpacking this statement. Any clear-thinking person is left gaping and slackjawed at its elitism, racism, and almost supernatural know-nothingness. What, most people *don't* prefer freedom (however imperfect) to some hallucinatory tyranny imposed by a psychopath and his scions? What a jerk - and he is one of the good guys, I guess.
Once again, scratch a socialist, find an aristocrat.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at February 1, 2005 02:00 PM
This would explain the stellar example of Haitian democracy, well established after several interventions dating back to 1912. Likewise, the French seem to have done an outstanding job as well in Cote D'Ivoire.
The severe trauma of Hussein might have installed the people with a desire to respect the institutions of democracy, but this cannot be assumed. Many conservatives have doubts too. The pitfalls are many:
* Will Iraqi democracy be strong enough to maintain law and order, or will gangsterism take over?
* Will the leading party willingly hand over power the first time they lose an election?
* Will the people in power respect the rights of the minority?
* Will national pride plunge Iraq into a civil war if the Kurds secede and the Shi'a refuse to accept it?
Few things are more common than nascent democracies succumbing to dictatorship. The one advantage they have now versus other countries in the past is that neither does an expansionist Soviet bloc exists to fuel discontent nor does the United Fruit company control American foreign policy anymore.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at February 1, 2005 04:15 PMblistering nitwits?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 1, 2005 06:02 PM...with a terrific sense of timing.
Posted by: LUCIFEROUS at February 1, 2005 06:07 PMOh, there's no guarantee that it'll succeed, mind you, but Brown assumes we shouldn't even try. Even the Haitians still want better - but that is a different set of problems.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at February 1, 2005 08:19 PMHaiti still has that legacy of being once owned by France that it needs to shed. Two centuries isn't enough time. (The same as with Louisiana, Quebec, Viet Nam and a large part of Africa.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 2, 2005 12:51 AM