Gotcha and agreed, on all points.
I’m not sure even the occupation/rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII are that apt as analogies. Both countries were thoroughly, decisively defeated in war. Unfortunately the analogies that seem to fit best are Viet Nam and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
Not encouraging at all.
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, a medley of extemporanea…
I don’t think I can agree that this is at all relevant to the case of Iraq. Revolutionary America differed vastly from Iraq in key respects. Britain, and by extension her colonies, had had in Parliament elements of democracy for centuries at that point. There was an ideal of representation ingrained in the culture, even if the House of Commons had not yet reached the level of political power it now enjoys. The US was also to a great extent socially homogenous - or at least, the enfranchised were, being as they were, propertied white anglo-saxon protestant men.
Iraq has neither the proto-democratic tradition, nor the cultural homogeneity. I should think that under reasonably favourable conditions it should take at least one full generation or more to achieve a strong democracy in Iraq. Of course, a Potemkin version can probably be in place by June 30.
And that´s what I´ve said since the beggining of this monumental blunder, Iraq´s population wasn´t ready for democracy yet; once a population becomes united enough to threaten an opressive regime the time has come, the people must have a sense of belonging to a nation in the first place if everyone is out for their own it won´t work, the internal struggles will disintegrate the state sooner than later.
I don’t really know how to respond to that. I know they don’t want us there, and I don’t blame the friends and family of the people killed for being angry with us. However, we are there, and we need to find some way out of the mess we’re in, both for the sake of the American soldiers and the Iraqis, and we need to do it in some way that minimizes the death toll on both sides. In an ideal world, this would mean solving the grievances of every group of Iraqis and transforming the state into a liberal democracy where individual rights are protected and that is governed by the rule of law, because I believe that’s one of the best things that can happen to a country. I think liberal democracy is probably the best ideology that people have come up with so far, and that it’s America’s job, and has been since our country was founded, to encourage that ideology everywhere.
However, it’s quite possible that that isn’t an option right now. But we need to do something to stop the terrible things happening every day (including most recently, the kidnapping of two Japanese aid workers, one Japanese journalist, a Georgian aid worker, a Palestinian aid worker, a Syrian Canadian aid worker, and eight South Korean missionaries.) I will point out that none of those kidnapped were from the United States or directly aiding the American occupation, but that they were all there to help the Iraqi people.
>> we need to do something to stop the terrible things happening every day
The most terrible things happening every day is that American troops are killing Iraquis in large numbers. If the Americans would pack up and leave the country the killings of Iraqis by Americans would stop and that is the worst thing happening right now. Furthermore, the Iraqis would not have any special reason to kidnap foreigners and hold them as hostages while demanding the Americans get out. So the whole argument makes no sense. none.
Well, except that if you pull out right now, you’re looking at civil war or worse (worse being intervention in said civil war by Turkey and/or Iran, and quite possibly region-wide conflagration). There are no right moves at this stage, only various wrong moves.
And just what type of shower would that be, luci? Golden, you say? 
It’s called knowing what the hell one’s going to do with the genie before pulling the plug on the bottle.
Knowing the precise nature and direction the force may take is impossible beforehand, but one should have at least a fair respect for the elemental forces unleashed. Scrambling after answers once the cork’s exploded is a loser’s proposition–for everybody concerned.
I wanted, so badly, to belive my government had the neccessary wit, strength AND wisdom for their rash actions. T’ain’t so, and sadly–so sadly–no amount of bluster will make it so.
The price for arrogant stupidity, no matter how naively well-intentioned, is so high for so many innocent, everyday people.
Yes and the US is responsible for having started this whole mess but, in any case, the fact that the Iraqis might fight is no excuse for the USA to be there killing them.
As far as stopping the violence any solution is better. The UN could probably do better and, at least it has more legitimacy. The USA is not in Iraq to stop a civil war. The USA is in Iraq for its own interests. That is why it adamantly refuses to let go of the prey into which it has sunk it’s teeth.
Japan might be a good example, having had no experience with democracy before the war. Hirohito’s decision to become involved with the surrender, and the US decision to let him stay as emperor helped a lot.
I’m not sure the US experience has much relevance, though. While we were colonies, they all had democratic institutions. Even the government under the Articles of Confederation was a democracy, more or less, certainly far more than Iraq ever was. Except for a few who might have wished to make Washington king, there was no argument about the US being a democracy (or republic, more accurately) just arguments over the details. This is far different from Iraq.
The only thing I can see to do is to support Sistani in setting up a moderate Islamic republic, and hope there isn’t too much bloodshed. The current administration has no credibility to do anything, and certainly hasn’t shown the flexibility to change course.
Hi, gobear.
I get “pull out” from the implication that Bush pulling out of Iraq would be “repeating the mistakes of Viet Nam”.
RTFirefly posts a rant condeming O’Reilly for suggesting that Bush ought to pull out of Iraq. I don’t think pulling out of Viet Nam upon realizing that the South Vietnamese wouldn’t fight the Viet Cong on their own would necessarily have been a mistake. Neither does O’Reilly, if the situations are at all similar.
I think it was just another “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for Bush and the SDMB. If Bush pulls out, RTF will condemn him for doing so. If Bush does not, same thing.
On the other hand, Bush shows no sign of wanting to cut and run from Iraq, so the whole discussion (and O’Reilly’s suggestions) are moot, at least at this point.
N.B. I would like to thank Captain Amazing for a very clear analysis of what I think O’Reilly was really saying.
Regards,
Shodan
Which were defined for you in the exact same post in the very next clause, so I don’t get why you think I was advocating a pull-out–I’m not.
Hmm, I see you as a die-hard Curtis LeMay type, but I could be wrong.
I think pulling out now would be a ghastly error. We need to make an deal with Sistani to turn on Sadr (who he hates anyway) and promise to leave Iraq in exchange for setting up an Islamic republic with a secular consulting body and proportionate representation for the Sunni minority. But we absolutely cannot cut and run right now
These whiny liberals try to act like I’m the only conservative willing to call bulllshit on politicians who happen to belong to the same party I do.
GO Philster !!
IFAICT, the no-fly zones included entire, well populated cities like Basra
You’re not, but you’re still the minority voice in your party. Unfortunately.
I’m almost 100% certain you’ve made this claim before, and I’m almost 100% certain I’ve corrected you. Britain’s House of Parliament was being voted into office through open democratic elections as early as 1623, and after the Cromwell era was effectively a monarchy based democracy long, long before the USA even came close to imagining itself into existence. The head of state remained the monarch, but the CEO was inarguably the Prime Minister.
Further, public elections were being held in Holland and Sweden long before 1776 as well. And the word “democracy” itself is Greek, which would imply that the concept of democracy goes back a looooooooooooooooong way, don’t you think?
It just bugs the shit out of me that so many Americans nowadays willfully choose to reinvent history to suit their claims of superior self-invention. I’m not saying all Americans do it - but enough do it to be REALLY FUCKING ANNOYING.
Granted, the US Constitution is a fine and noble document, but let’s not stretch the truth here. The Founding Fathers didn’t invent much which wasn’t already being practiced somewhere in some part of the world - they merely refined already existing concepts to meet their needs to break the shackles of Imperial British Rule.
And even then, it was a shaky thing for a long time. The efforts of Thomas Jefferson are probably singularly the most important thing that prevented the Constitution from sliding into the hands of becoming an oligarchy. But the concept of a Federal State which controlled member states existed prior to 1776. The USA did NOT, I repeat NOT invent this concept. Nor did it invent public voting. And the Roman Empire Senate proves conclusively that the USA also did not invent the concept of a non-monarch being either a country’s CEO or Head of State.
Ergo, the USA is not the world’s first democracy.
The current administration is doing its level best to reverse Jefferson’s efforts. Working out pretty well, so far.
Nope, and nope.
It was an honest miss-step in language, and I realized it as soon as I read it upon posting. I was wondering if I’d be given the benefit of the doubt and be raked over the coals or not.
And this paragraph above is nearly my entire point. We established a democracy from the ashes of Britain’s rule. After that, it was more than a little shaky, coming close to civil war several times before getting worked out. TJ is definitely our hero.
See above.
Sam
Wrong. I posted a rant condemning O’Reilly for suggesting that Bush ought to pull out of Iraq in order to save his ass this November, rather than for reasons having to do with whether we can positively affect how the aftereffects of our invasion play out in Iraq.
That’s the loathsome part.
They didn’t invite us in; we decided on our own to rescue the Iraqis from Saddam.
If O’Reilly had reached the conclusion that nothing the U.S. did would make a difference in how our ‘rescue’ played out for them, then by that logic there would be no point in our staying around a minute longer. I might argue with his logic, but certainly not his motivation.
But he didn’t say any such thing. He said we should leave because if we stayed, Bush might lose the election on account of Iraq. So his call on whether to stay or go was based on a value system that put the success or failure of his candidate at the polls ahead of the fate of 25 million Iraqis.
The conservatives keep on talking about how “character counts”. What sort of character is reflected here? A loathsome, reprehensible one, that’s what kind.
Hardly. But I will demand of them that they set their course by what they’ve claimed was their motivation going in: to liberate Iraq, and see them through to a better day. With no WMDs and no Saddam-al Qaeda connection, the liberation of the Iraqi people is the last reason standing. And if we can’t liberate them, we at least don’t want to leave them worse off than before we invaded, do we?
If Bush determines that we can’t do a thing to rescue the Iraqis from civil war and the collapse of anything resembling government, that no matter what we do, we’re more a part of the problem than part of the solution, then it’s time to go. (FWIW, I think we’ve either reached that point, or are rapidly nearing it. If next week is like last week, there will just be too much to undo that will be undoable.) But as long as he believes we can bring them through to, not even democracy, but a state of civil order whose stability will outlast our presence there, then he’s a hypocrite if he cuts and runs.
Bush shows no sign of leaving, of course; instead, he’s making war on the people we’re supposedly there to liberate.
But O’Reilly’s morally loathsome for the reasons I’ve stated. It has nothing to do with whether he feels we should stay or go; it’s all about the why.