Replies

I agree with you about the Constitution that MacArthur imposed on the Japanese. But there is no entity that can do in Iraq now, what he did then, in Japan. General MacArthur was, in fact, a military dictator, given the powers that he had as a result of the Unconditional Surrender and the fact that MacArthur was in sole charge of the "Allied" occupation of Japan.

When it works well, the "best" form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. It is an extension of Plato's philosophy of government by "philosopher kings." It worked with MacArthur in Japan. It worked with Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. In all other instances in history, such efforts led to bloody dictatorships, did they not?

John / Billybob

It worked with MacArthur in Japan. It worked with Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. In all other instances in history, such efforts led to bloody dictatorships, did they not?

I think the United States has plenty of men who could accomplish what MacArthur did given the leeway. Political support that is. IMO, its not so much MacArthur as what he was offering the people of Japan - real freedom. If he had allowed the Tojo mindset to stay in power in Japan, there would not have been real freedom there anymore than if Truman had declared Nazism an Ideology of Peace as our own President Bush has declared with Islam.

So I don't see it as the Person in charge as much as what that person offers to the people.

And today we are offering to the Iraqi people a trip back to the 7th century with this new constitution that demands that NO LAW CONTRADICT ISLAM.

Its as if the Germans would have been allowed, after losing WW2,to come up with a constitution that said NO LAW CONTRADICTS NAZISM.

If the Kurds have any sense they will pull out and form their own government with real Freedom of Religion - but that's if they have any sense.