Thursday, June 14, 2007
Did "Democracy" "Fail" in Iraq?
One of the assumptions that we need to revisit in order to assess what to do in Iraq is what elections actually wrought.
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.
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.
Comments:
<< Home
How much do we know about whether individual members of Iraq's parliament are also milita commanders in their own right--or are the politicians themselves without arms.
Because the solution tried in Afghanistan was to turn warlords into politicians.
Because the solution tried in Afghanistan was to turn warlords into politicians.
# posted by 
: 11:37 AM
: 11:37 AM
The solution in Afghanistan was based on a global consensus. The neighbouring states were neither excluded nor threatened. Moreover, US was not interested in maintaining hegemony there for any length of time.
Even Afghanistan is unravelling - it is Bush & Bush & Bush to be blamed for it.
Even Afghanistan is unravelling - it is Bush & Bush & Bush to be blamed for it.
# posted by : 12:22 PM
: 12:22 PM
Yes, there is a share of blame that goes to the United States and to the administration for failure. But it takes two to tango. Failure is also what Iraqis and Afghanis have not done or been prepared to do. Easy to blame the U.S. alone and not to look in the mirror.
# posted by : 1:00 PM
: 1:00 PM
"Yes, there is a share of blame that goes to the United States and to the administration for failure. But it takes two to tango. Failure is also what Iraqis and Afghanis have not done or been prepared to do. Easy to blame the U.S. alone and not to look in the mirror."
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.
Post a Comment
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.
# posted by : 4:28 AM
: 4:28 AM << Home
