i cant wait
- Thread starter phil
- Start date
The only problem with this view is, accounting to the simple fact that Iraq is part of Arabia and the Pan-Arab movement, legitimacy is currently gained in Iraq through opposition to the US. The Iraqi people had a hugely positive initial reaction (70%) to the removal of Hussein. However, the subsequent handling of the situation ( as well as the policy and conduct of Rumsfeld and the management of the offensive during the war ) have led to an absolute widespread mistrust and dislike of the US occupation.
There is a good chance that order can be salvaged in Iraq and an overall positive outcome will occur as a result of our actions. The main way the Iraqis would judge this is 1. stability and 2. economics. Unemployment in Iraq right now currently hovers around the 75 percent mark, contrasted with anywhere from 15 to 30 percent during the rule of Hussein. The main issue to Iraqis as of this moment is not terrorism or democracy; it is jobs and infrastructure.
However, all issues are linked; without a stable ground situation development of a successful economic apparatus is halted. It's extremely hard, for example, to set up a cell phone network when regional COs get bombed and employees assaulted. Adding to the security situation was the hubris and stubbornness of Bush Admin. officials. The State Department's regional experts drafted a plan on the "future of Iraq" which was seen as too soft and laughed at by Rumsfeld and Bush. It was figuratively tossed on the floor.
Rumsfeld's "light troop" approach utterly failed in a security sense. Iraq, at this moment, is nowhere near contained, making infrastructure development extremely difficult. US troops stood by helplessly while Iraq was looted and pillaged by its own besieged citizens.
Democracy in Iraq is a funny thing. We tend to think of Democracy in western and eurocentric terms...in other words, democracy is the highest achievement a country can reach in terms of political freedom. Politics in the Middle East, however, undergoes a radical paradigm shift that causes up to be down and down up. Citizens in Iraq have little ideas about the implementation of democracy, and historically in the Middle Eastern regions democracy has largely been a curiosity.
Often Middle Eastern countries with the areas of largest personal freedom come have what we would call liberal autocracies. Countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan in some ways (ironically) operated under a larger assumption of consideration of opinions of groups or bodies. Saddam Hussein was directly responsible to the Shi'a clerics with his government policies; the Taleban as a ruling agency often took input from large groups of tribal leaders, and Egypt has a pseudo-accountable government that often listens to dissent in powerful media and ruling groups. Yet, freedoms in these societies remained possibly he worst in the Middle East. Places like Yemen, Tunis, even (surprisingly) Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait rank on a higher scale of personal freedom. Yet these are countries that do not consult anyone in official rulings...monarchies and small oligarchies dominate life to a huge extent.
The flipside is that often, these rulers are more liberal and permissive than their subjects. In Pakistan, for example, extreme anti-American and pro-Al Qaeda parties dominate up to 35% of "government seats", and it is estimated that their support in public opinion may reach 50 percent. With the vote split three ways, the next election could put the nuclear bomb in the hands of extreme pan-Arabist fanatics. Democracy could elect an Osama bin Laden.
It is to the interest of everyone and their mom to restore peace in Iraq. I could talk for years about the effects of the invasion, the possible huge boost in terrorism due to the war, the loss of American credibility in the Middle East, etc., but I doubt you've even read my previous post.
There is a good chance that order can be salvaged in Iraq and an overall positive outcome will occur as a result of our actions. The main way the Iraqis would judge this is 1. stability and 2. economics. Unemployment in Iraq right now currently hovers around the 75 percent mark, contrasted with anywhere from 15 to 30 percent during the rule of Hussein. The main issue to Iraqis as of this moment is not terrorism or democracy; it is jobs and infrastructure.
However, all issues are linked; without a stable ground situation development of a successful economic apparatus is halted. It's extremely hard, for example, to set up a cell phone network when regional COs get bombed and employees assaulted. Adding to the security situation was the hubris and stubbornness of Bush Admin. officials. The State Department's regional experts drafted a plan on the "future of Iraq" which was seen as too soft and laughed at by Rumsfeld and Bush. It was figuratively tossed on the floor.
Rumsfeld's "light troop" approach utterly failed in a security sense. Iraq, at this moment, is nowhere near contained, making infrastructure development extremely difficult. US troops stood by helplessly while Iraq was looted and pillaged by its own besieged citizens.
Democracy in Iraq is a funny thing. We tend to think of Democracy in western and eurocentric terms...in other words, democracy is the highest achievement a country can reach in terms of political freedom. Politics in the Middle East, however, undergoes a radical paradigm shift that causes up to be down and down up. Citizens in Iraq have little ideas about the implementation of democracy, and historically in the Middle Eastern regions democracy has largely been a curiosity.
Often Middle Eastern countries with the areas of largest personal freedom come have what we would call liberal autocracies. Countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan in some ways (ironically) operated under a larger assumption of consideration of opinions of groups or bodies. Saddam Hussein was directly responsible to the Shi'a clerics with his government policies; the Taleban as a ruling agency often took input from large groups of tribal leaders, and Egypt has a pseudo-accountable government that often listens to dissent in powerful media and ruling groups. Yet, freedoms in these societies remained possibly he worst in the Middle East. Places like Yemen, Tunis, even (surprisingly) Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait rank on a higher scale of personal freedom. Yet these are countries that do not consult anyone in official rulings...monarchies and small oligarchies dominate life to a huge extent.
The flipside is that often, these rulers are more liberal and permissive than their subjects. In Pakistan, for example, extreme anti-American and pro-Al Qaeda parties dominate up to 35% of "government seats", and it is estimated that their support in public opinion may reach 50 percent. With the vote split three ways, the next election could put the nuclear bomb in the hands of extreme pan-Arabist fanatics. Democracy could elect an Osama bin Laden.
It is to the interest of everyone and their mom to restore peace in Iraq. I could talk for years about the effects of the invasion, the possible huge boost in terrorism due to the war, the loss of American credibility in the Middle East, etc., but I doubt you've even read my previous post.
