Those with narrow minds and myopic views show their ignorance of history and the lessons learned from failed religous states of the past and present. To say that democratic advocates are so ignorant that they don't know that a religous state cannot provide equality and freedom to all people is just arrogant and patronizing. Been there, done that. Religous states have come and gone with good reason. Westerners went through this process hundreds of years ago when they realized that there must be a separation between religion and government. To think that ancient scripture describing the life and times of warring, nomadic, desert-dwelling tribes can possibly govern modern nation states is fantasy land. You can't tell me that with as much controversy there is within Islam today about what is and isn't allowed, what actually constitutes as law, which hadiths are authentic (or if any of them are valid), how to do deal with modern economic models, the inablity to change with current times and the history of totalinarism over Muslim people that there is any chance of a religous government succeeding.
*You can't tell me that with as much controversy there is within Islam today about what is and isn't allowed, what actually constitutes as law, which hadiths are authentic (or if any of them are valid), how to do deal with modern economic models, *
^ the US constitution is over two hundred years old, and Americans still insist on a rigid interpretation of Gun laws..isn't this a slight case of the pot calling the kettle black?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
myvoice... point is Bremmer is not going to stay in Iraq forever. Sooner or later, Iraqis have to grapple with this question themselves as to what kind of law they want for their country. Pontification aside, if US does not plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, why is it creating additional roadblocks against the will of the people?
At this point, the US should be facilitating the dialogue between different groups of Iraqi people and try to bring them to a common ground, and not to force-feed its own ideals on something which they can later kick out anyway. This will help US to get out of Iraq as soon as possible (assuming that is what US wants too).
[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree with everything you say above. The exception being, I think the US IS trying to bring the differing factions to a common ground. The task is just not as easy as everyone hoped it would be. The US is not the party that can resolve the centuries old turmoil that exists between the Shias and the Sunnis not to mention the Kurds. What it can try (and hopefully is trying) is to assist in creating a structure in which those parties can resolve their differences peaceably and in accordance with some agreed upon legal framework. The worst thing we can do is accept a structure that guarantees a bloody civil war that locks millions of Iraqi's into a repressive and dictatorial regime no better than the one that was booted out. A repressive, dictatorial and theocratic Shia government that represses 40% of the Iraqi people is not a substanital improvement over a repressive, dictatorial non-theocratic Baathist government repressing 70% of the people. It is somewhat better because the number of repressed is somewhat smaller. However, a better alternative is one that represses no one. If that is still possible, that is what we should strive for. There may not be enough common ground to make that possible. Time (and more deaths) will tell.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I pretty much agree with everything you say above. The exception being, I think the US IS trying to bring the differing factions to a common ground. The task is just not as easy as everyone hoped it would be. The US is not the party that can resolve the centuries old turmoil that exists between the Shias and the Sunnis not to mention the Kurds. What it can try (and hopefully is trying) is to assist in creating a structure in which those parties can resolve their differences peaceably and in accordance with some agreed upon legal framework. The worst thing we can do is accept a structure that guarantees a bloody civil war that locks millions of Iraqi's into a repressive and dictatorial regime no better than the one that was booted out. A repressive, dictatorial and theocratic Shia government that represses 40% of the Iraqi people is not a substanital improvement over a repressive, dictatorial non-theocratic Baathist government repressing 70% of the people. It is somewhat better because the number of repressed is somewhat smaller. However, a better alternative is one that represses no one. If that is still possible, that is what we should strive for. There may not be enough common ground to make that possible. Time (and more deaths) will tell.
[/QUOTE]
Myvoice... doesn't all that make you think whether US could have planned the whole thing better. I mean, it was never a secret that Iraq is a shia majority country with Sunni rulers who have supressed both Shias and Kurds for many many years. You take out the bloody dictator and you have a civil war ripe in your hands.
Granted, you may say, if that is the price of removing Saddam, its worth it, because Saddam, from an American viewpoint, may have become a threat to US... while a civil war inside Iraq will only kill more Iraqis.
Having said that... US should have developed an exit strategy. How will you leave a country which is on the verge of a bloody infighting?
Unless ofcourse, its US' plan all along to eventually allow splitting Iraq into three parts: let Iran dominate the shia-majority areas of Iraq (its pretty much given cz however long US stays in Iraq, Iran can stay a day longer as its a neighbor), let sunis rule the puny areas they are a majority in, and grab control of oil from Kurdish areas and give it to some big corporations by way of multi-year, non-cancellable drilling and refining contracts.
^ Anyone who would dispute the proposition that the US should have planned better for post-war Iraq is living in NeverLand. I'm sure the plan the administration had included contingencies for various "what-if" scenarios. Apparently, an awful lot of "what-ifs" weren't considered adequately. Things that were assumed would happen, didn't. Things that were assumed would not happen, did.
I see no evidence to support the proposition that the US has followed, is following, or wants to follow a plan for splitting Iraq into three parts and/or wants a civil war to break out in Iraq.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I see no evidence to support the proposition that the US has followed, is following, or wants to follow a plan for splitting Iraq into three parts and/or wants a civil war to break out in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
I am just giving you the benefit of the doubt. :)
At present, I don't see any evidence either, but hand-to-heart, things are not going well. Unless Iraqis produce a massive Statesman who can keep the country together, the mistrust runs so deep, that, whether anyone likes it or not, it is gradually becoming clear to anyone and everyone, that a unified Iraq will require a huge effort.
Surprising thing is, even five years ago, anyone who had even redumentary knowledge about Iraq would have told you exactly the same thing. Its not rocket science. Really.
^ Well, you know....five years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of East and West Germany would never have thought that possible either.
Hand to heart, I'm not particularly optimistic about seeing the emergence of a unified, peaceable, stable Iraq anytime soon. Whether it happens gets back to something you wrote earlier: finding common ground. The common ground ought to be that all parties want to prevent the slaughter of a whole bunch of Iraqis. This ought to take higher precedence than the interest of these groups in seizing total power for themselves on their own dictated terms. Unfortunately, I don't see a higher value being placed on Iraqi lives than on the attainment of power and control.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
^ This ought to take higher precedence than the interest of these groups in seizing total power for themselves on their own dictated terms.
[/QUOTE]
Yet the Bush administration thus far refuses to let the UN take over.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Yet the Bush administration thus far refuses to let the UN take over.
[/QUOTE]
UTD: You have REALLY got to put aside your political partisanship when you post on these subjects. The UN ** refuses ** to keep even one body on the ground in Iraq much less "take over." If you want to blame the actions of the Bush administration for the UN adopting its current attitude, that would be fair comment. But, if you view every issue through partisan lenses until November, we're in for a long, long year.
Myvoice, it was Bush’s team who ran a successful campaign to defeat Saddam and it is the same team that failed to win Iraq. After the march to Baghdad the U.S. “Rejected U.N. Influence in Postwar Iraq Governance”. Ceding some control to the UN would have led to international support and international troops. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush scorned the UN and they are ultimately responsible for this alienation and lack of support by the world. Election time is coming up and Bush will cede controls to the UN on UN terms, something that should have been done 11 months ago.
…
U.S. Rejects U.N. Influence in Postwar Iraq Governance
Monday, April 07, 2003
The U.S.-led coalition will likely run Iraq until a new government is in place in Baghdad and ready to take control of its affairs, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Sunday.
Wolfowitz noted that it took six months for a government to form in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War ended.
“This is a more complicated situation,” he told Fox News Sunday. “It probably will take more time than that.”
The United Nations likely won’t be invited in to run an interim government, officials said.
A U.N.-administered government is “not a model we want to follow, of a sort of permanent international administration,” Wolfowitz said.
UTD:
An article from April of last year is a little outdated respecting current US policy for post-war Iraq don't you think?
Besides, the UN has expressed no interest or desire in now "running an interim government" which the US said it opposed last April. The US and the UN apparently are in agreement that the model of a UN administered government in Iraq is not a model anyone wants to follow, including the Iraqis.
The Bush Administration is clearly not "refusing" to let the UN take over as your earlier post contended.
The US and UN apparently are in complete agreement that authority will be turned over to an interim Iraqi government on June 30 with elections to follow as soon as possible thereafter.