Posted on 10/29/2006 4:53:55 AM PST by shrinkermd
"...Forget neoconservative dreams of making Iraq a democratic showplace that could change the political culture of the Middle East. Forget Bush's insistence that the "terrorists" in Iraq must be defeated. Forget creation of a single, strong Iraqi government in which Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds participate. The Iraqis don't want that and, truth be told, neither do Iraq's neighbors.
The best hope now is for a confederation of semiautonomous states in Iraq -- Shiite, Kurd and Sunni -- among which oil revenues, mostly from Shiite regions, are forcibly shared. Who's going to do the forcing? Iraq's neighbors must do most of it. They don't want a strong, central Iraqi government but they also don't want Iraq caught up in an extended, region-destabilizing civil war.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Anders Gyllenhaal is editor and senior vice president of the Star Tribune, with responsibility for the paper's news content and direction of the newsroom. This is his personal fantasy and wish which is certainly congruent with Pinch Sulzberger of the NYT and others.
The most important fact of this election is how well, how often and how carefully the MSM has entered the political arena as the spokesman for the antiwar and leftist wing of the Democrat Party.
Will they triumph? Will they survive with only the leftist readers?
The whole problem in Iraq solved by this one news article.
I dont see why we dont have the media running the world. They always have all the answers.
Should read: Will they triumph? Will they survive with only leftist readers and advertisers?
And, can "Denny Hecker" auto wall paper on their Web Site make up for these loses?
Do they mean Iran and Syria do NOT want a democracy? NO SHI*. I'm astounded.
Sounds like a neoconservative dream come true to me. Long live federalism!
And has the circulation of this or any other "newspaper" went up w/in that last 10 years? NO! These people are increasingly preaching to the choir.
It would appear that the Star Tribune wants to surrender. Are they negotiating for terms or is this to be an unconditional action?
They've surrendered to the Mpls suburbs already.
Never seen this "newspaper". Hope the folks in Minnesota have some other choice too.
Sounds like their editorialists are stuck in the sixties.
They preach to their own choir.
Red Star Flag
I never read newspapers until I got a Union job and could screw around reading the Paper and that was considered an OK use of my time.
Well Unless I bring in the Wall Street Journal, but the Strib and Pioneer Press are good to go.
Where is this article really all that wrong?
Ya, I don't like the politics of the Startribune either, but the article is largely spot on.
Sometimes I do wonder, at what point exactly are people here going to accept that the "Islamic democracy" mission in Iraq was a fools errand from minute one?
Saddam ruthless, brutal tactics were exactly what held the state together. The example to Tito in Yugoslavia, while imperfect, was reasonable.
Saddam's removal did create a power vacuum, one which the United States did not fill - instead we allowed militias of all stripe to strengthen and failed utterly to stop Sunni/al-Queda terrorists from the beginning (which had the effect of legitimizing the need for some of these militia's in the eye's of Iraqi's).
We failed utterly to do anything about Falluja until it became a full blown terrorist controlled city used to plan strategic level attacks. That was the beginning of the end for the US mission in Iraq. Allowing terrorists to control that city as long as they did was one of the more striking blunders We did not kill al-Sadr when we defeated his army and had an opportunity to take him out in Najaf. We did not put enough troops on the ground. The list just keeps going.
Personally, I think the "Islamic democracy" project is foolish anyway. Islam will have to change from within. They are 500 years behind us, and all we can do is serve as an example to them. When they attack us, we should annhilate any of their communities or nations that can be help responsible. We should immediately adopt the idea that containing the Islamic threat requires the constant use of collective punishment. If Muslims can't control their terrorists, clerics or leaders, we will just have to raze entire cities or eliminate whole communities. That is the only way the Islamic world will ever learn that they can't attack the US or our allies without bringing 100x's the pain down on themselves and their loved ones. We can't change their leaders, but eventually they can.
Iraq has destroyed Bush's presidency, and I find it sad that so many here on FR still attempt to maintain that this entire adventure was a good idea. Yes, it was noble, and yes, maybe it was Bush's attempt to stave off a real clash of civilizations, but the entire undertaking was doomed from minute one. Sadly, Afghanistan will probably fail just like Iraq. These people don't want "democracy" at this point, they just want their particular tribal leader or cleric in charge. As I said, 500 years behind us.
Iraq will never be a democracy. The idea of democracy goes against the rule of the mullah's. The US government needs to understand that not every nation is suited for democracy. Security of the oil routes is the best we should hope for.
Iraq will never be a democracy. The idea of democracy goes against the rule of the mullah's. The US government needs to understand that not every nation is suited for democracy. Security of the oil routes is the best we should hope for.
The politics of Turkey takes place within a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, in which the Prime Minister of Turkey is the head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.
The function of Head of State is performed by the President of the Republic (Cumhurbaþkaný). A president is elected every seven years by the Grand National Assembly but is not required to be a member of parliament. The current President Ahmet Necdet Sezer was elected on May 16, 2000. Executive power rests in the Prime Minister (Baþbakan) and the Council of Ministers (Bakanlar Kurulu) who make up the government. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of Parliament; though in most cases they are (one notable exception was Kemal Derviþ, who was the Minister of Finance following the financial crisis of 2001; he is currently the head of the UN Development Fund). The Prime Minister is elected by parliament through a vote of confidence in his government, and he is generally the head of the party that has won the elections.
The current Prime Minister is Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, whose Islamic conservative AKP won an absolute majority of parliamentary seats in the 2002 general elections. The President of the Parliament is Bülent Arýnç, also from the same party. Legislative power is invested in the 550-seat Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi) that represents the Turkish Nation. Its members are elected for a five year term by mitigated proportional representation with a national election threshold of 10%. There are 85 electoral districts that represent the 81 administrative provinces of Turkey (Istanbul is divided into three electoral districts whereas Ankara and Izmir are divided into two each because of their large populations).
To avoid a hung parliament and its excessive political fragmentation, only parties that win at least 10% of the national vote in a national parliamentary election gain the right to parliamentary representation. Independent candidates may run, and to be elected, they must only win 10% of the vote in the district they are running from. Political parties deemed anti-secular or separatist by the Constitutional Court can have their public financing and activities suspended or its existence banned altogether. Turkey has a multi-party system, with several well-established parties, ranging from the far-left to the far-right.
The Armed forces have traditionally been a politically powerful institution, considered as the guardians of Atatürk's Republic. The protection of the Turkish Constitution and the unity of the country is by law given to the Turkish Armed Forces that therefore plays a formal political role via the National Security Council in the same functional way that exists also in other western democracies, as the guardian of the secular, unitary nature of the republic and reforms of Atatürk in the Turkish example. They have staged three coups between 1960 and 1980, whilst also influencing the removal of the Islam-oriented government of Necmettin Erbakan in 1997. Through the National Security Council (Milli Guvenlik Kurulu), the army contributes to recommendations for defense policy against any threat to the country, including those relating to any ethnic or religious separatism.
In recent years, reforms have seen an increased civilian presence on the National Security Council and efforts to defunct military's constitutional responsibilities under the program of compliance with the EU demands. Despite its perceived alleged influence in civilian affairs, the military owns strong unequivocal support from the nation, frequently seen as Turkey's most trusted institution.[11] See also: Constitution of Turkey, Legal System
see post 16 regarding Turkey
Islam can spread sharia law and dhimmitude in the West, but we can't spread democracy? How come?
You may be right that it would have been better to bomb the living daylights out of the Sunni triangle and kill Sadr, but Bush's opponents would have screamed about war crimes. Still, I think the war has accomplished much: Saddam and his army are out of the picture. We've shown the will to retaliate against those who support terrorism and give succor to Al Qaeda.
It's unfortunate that modernizing societies often go through spasms of violence. Look at the Balkans, or even at our own Civil War. Still, I agree with Mark Steyn that stability is highly overrated.
The problem is that the Islamofascists are willing to fight for as long as it takes, while we want to win cheap. It isn't about our "dream" for Iraq -- we're not trying to win a reality show here. It's about pursuing our interests and goals for long as it takes. Iraq is just one episode in a long struggle.
Yes, exactly. "When Adam delved and Eve Twain who then was the fascist man?" A little Chaucer might keep people from assuming the great people differences between the Mideast and the West remain insurmountable.
We have a common human nature and the trend to democratic values is now at a crescendo.
It really is frsutrating to read intelligent conservatives describing this war as a failure.
The US won this war.
The US has removed a dictator.
The US has established a new constitution for Iraq -- while the EU failed to do so.
The US has secured three elections with more voter turnout than the US.
94% of Iraqis despise Al Qaeda-- this means Al Qaeda is more popular here than in Iraq. That is a heart minds CRUSH.
There is and has been for some time a democracy in iraq. The fact that it does not resemble 21st century america is transparently irrelevant.
Every day more than 100 cars are burned in Paris as 7000 French police are on call to stop muslim violence in that 'democracy.'
The anti-Iraq mantra emanating from conservative and liberal mouthpieces is total and absolute deception.
This war has been very successful.
Just ask Usay Qusay and Zarqawi----- oh wait--- their dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.