Thursday, June 14, 2007
Did "Democracy" "Fail" in Iraq?
The working assumption (or some might say delusion) was that elections in Iraq brought to power political leaders who had mandates to govern and to rule, and that they commanded the support of most of their voters, and that what was needed was targeted military action against a small minority of rejectionists.
Is that really the case?
One option is that Iraqis themselves have hedged; just as families split their sons between the police/security services and the militias/insurgencies, people voted for politicians and give open or tacit aid to the militants, as a hedge for the future.
Or those who were elected have failed their constituencies (in terms of providing security, opportunity, stability and the prospect for peace).
Are we aiding a process in Iraq that could lead to stability, or impeding it?
And at what point and under what circumstances are Iraqis responsible for what happens?
On a separate note:
My sense is that when General Petraeus releases his report, he will note that when resources and attention have been focused on an area in a sustained way, you can see signs of progress--but then recommend that the U.S. maintain or increase its commitments for the next two to three years--something I think is politically unsustainable in the U.S.
Because the solution tried in Afghanistan was to turn warlords into politicians.
Even Afghanistan is unravelling - it is Bush & Bush & Bush to be blamed for it.
Not true. The people in Iraq never asked for the US to come and invade them. They have no obligation to submit to our will and live the way we want them to. And they were powerless to avoid the Us attack. There was no evidence of the absence of WMD that the Dubya Administration would have accepted
The US and the US alone is to blame for the war in Iraq.