Partitioning Iraq
There's been a lot of talk about partitioning lately, and while I kind of agree that's our best hope, partitioning Iraq would constitute utter and complete -- unmitigated -- failure of Bush's policy.
There will be no way in which his policy did not fail -- save, perhaps, for having actually removed Saddam Hussein, though history will (I fear) remember that as a cure that was worse than the disease.
The bottom line: Bush came ostensibly to liberate Iraq and will, because of his almost complete ignorance of the facts on the ground, most likely end up wiping it off the map.
We should take a moment to contemplate the monumental, epic failure this represents. We have not begun to understand the consequences of Bush's war--and, as a nation, we will be dealing with them for the rest of all our lives... Possibly our childrens' lives, as well.
BTW, I'm uncomfortable with any argument that ends with a variation on "it's time for the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own country." We've been hearing a lot of that lately, too. And I don't disagree with it, but let's remember: they didn't ask for this. We forced this catastrophe on them.
Yes, they were under a totalitarian dictatorship (as are hundreds of millions of other people on this planet who we won't even think about "liberating"), but at least they had stability. They had peace. They knew what they were in for when they got up in the morning.
We took that away from them--and now they have no prospect of returning to anything remotely resembling what they had before, let alone something we would recognize as "free."
So, y'know, give them a break, and let's not act like there's something wrong with them for not being able to "get it together" (especially because we can't do it, either).
They didn't have much in the first place -- but what they did have, we took away.
There will be no way in which his policy did not fail -- save, perhaps, for having actually removed Saddam Hussein, though history will (I fear) remember that as a cure that was worse than the disease.
The bottom line: Bush came ostensibly to liberate Iraq and will, because of his almost complete ignorance of the facts on the ground, most likely end up wiping it off the map.
We should take a moment to contemplate the monumental, epic failure this represents. We have not begun to understand the consequences of Bush's war--and, as a nation, we will be dealing with them for the rest of all our lives... Possibly our childrens' lives, as well.
BTW, I'm uncomfortable with any argument that ends with a variation on "it's time for the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own country." We've been hearing a lot of that lately, too. And I don't disagree with it, but let's remember: they didn't ask for this. We forced this catastrophe on them.
Yes, they were under a totalitarian dictatorship (as are hundreds of millions of other people on this planet who we won't even think about "liberating"), but at least they had stability. They had peace. They knew what they were in for when they got up in the morning.
We took that away from them--and now they have no prospect of returning to anything remotely resembling what they had before, let alone something we would recognize as "free."
So, y'know, give them a break, and let's not act like there's something wrong with them for not being able to "get it together" (especially because we can't do it, either).
They didn't have much in the first place -- but what they did have, we took away.
posted by Scott at 1:38 PM
3 Comments:
I saw this coming looooooong ago. I figured that we wouldn't have an Iraq in 10 years' time, and now that prediction seems to be coming true. :(
I take strong issue with this, "They had peace. They knew what they were in for when they got up in the morning." That feeling is starting to become the liberal hunting call, and it's totally ridiculous.
The Iraqi people did not have peace. What "they were in for when they got up in the morning" was oppression. Being dragged out of their homes and beaten, being nerve gassed, and being persecuted is hardly peaceful. Everyone, liberal and conservative and everything in between, thought Saddam was a tyrant and an imminent threat to world peace.
Don't get me wrong. I will not make the case that they're better off now. At least not right now. We f#cked up big-time by not having any form of follow-through after Saddam was ousted. Their country is a mess, their infrastructure is in shambles, and they're on the brink of civil war.
But at least they have the opportunity to make something good now that they're out from under the oppressive boot of the former dictatorship. Granted, it's going to take a long before that "something good" can take shape. But at least the opportunity is there.
Remember how this country started. We went through significant growing pains after ousting England, including a Civil War of our own. But just because we knew what we were in for every morning existing as a colony didn't mean revolting wasn't the right choice.
Only time will tell.
>>I take strong issue with this, "They had peace. They knew what they were in for when they got up in the morning." That feeling is starting to become the liberal hunting call, and it's totally ridiculous.<<
It's a quote from Marlin Fitzwater. James Bakker has said something similar. These people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, liberals.
>> Everyone, liberal and conservative and everything in between, thought Saddam was a tyrant and an imminent threat to world peace.<<
Horse-shit, man. An "imminent threat to world peace?" He wasn't even a threat to his neighbors, let alone people halfway around the world (aka, Americans). And we ignored those who ARE (aka, qaeda) to go after them. Pretty fucked up, priority-wise, if you ask me.
>>Their country is a mess, their infrastructure is in shambles, and they're on the brink of civil war.<<
They're not on the brink of anything, dude--They're in the MIDDLE of civil war. And it's our fault.
Post a Comment
<< Home