Posted on 12/27/2006 10:37:43 PM PST by Northern Alliance
Who can forget the scenes of jubilant Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad in 2003? Who can forget the cheerful Iraqis around the falling statue of Saddam, symbolising the fall of the dictator’s regime?
Indeed, the majority of Iraqis were supportive to the efforts of liberating Iraq from the tight grip of Iraq’s worst dictator. That includes the vast majority of Kurds (about 20% of the total population) and the Shia (about 60% of the total population) as well as many sunni Arabs (about 20% of the total population). All these groups had suffered badly and sadly at the hands of Saddam’s Baath regime. They considered the war as a liberation war, rather than an occupation of Iraq. The American and British forces fought skilfully and won an easy military victory with minimal losses. Although Saddam and his Baath regime collapsed having provided minimal resistance, the jubilation soon started to fade away as the situation deteriorated rapidly. With so many killed, kidnapped and so many scandals spreading around, even the most sincere supporters of the war had to reconsider their positions and admit that Iraq is in a miss. But did it have to be?
The success or failure of America in Iraq is of significance to both America and Iraq, the final outcome from this war may have a lasting effect on America’s standing in future conflicts. I can take this even further and say that many of the principles of the western civilization may be at stake. Failure in Iraq may signify that the seeds of destruction of the western civilization may be growing faster than had been previously thought. Let us briefly review the most recent history on this.
(Excerpt) Read more at islam-watch.org ...
"but this is from the perspective of a Muslim Arab."
And since most Iraqis are Muslims, this viewpoint should be considered.
I concur with his assessment about the Musilm charcter and the failure of the Bush administration to consider that millenia of tyrannical rule, re-inforced by cultural and religious norms could be effectively altered using western style techniques.
His suggestion is a valid one and one which has worked - as he points out.
As long as these people adhere to the Koran and its autocratic perspecitves regarding personal life, democracy is a vain dream for these people.
Furthermore, our primary reasons for getting involved there were to defend ourselves and our own best interests and Bush somehow allowed this to be morphed into an exercize in social refomr on a massive level.
There is not a singel Iraq - there are many Iraq - Shiities, Sunni and Kurdish and even more. Trying to bring these essentially 7th Century Shiekdoms into the world of 21st century Democracies wsa an exercise in futility.
We should have kept our primary objectives in mind, destroyed Saddam and his regime, moved on to the do the same thing in IRan and Syria, and either done as this writer suggests, or simply pulled out immediately and left these primitives to sort their problems out intheir own way.
This would be a good read for Bush, Gates and the rest of the leadership.
" Failure in Iraq may signify that the seeds of destruction of the western civilization "
Its at least a step in that direction.
Iraq is not a war - its a battle.
The war is international in scope and involves all of western civilization versus a hostile and aggressive alternative social style. The current administration, along with most Americans simply seem incapable of recognizing that - and they have a lot of other civilized nations from Britain and Canada to Japan.
"As long as these people adhere to the Koran and its autocratic perspecitves regarding personal life, democracy is a vain dream for these people."
There is really nothing else to be said. You said it all.
"This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one"
That says it all too.
I thoroughly agree ith you.
A returning civilian contractor from Iraq just informed me that only 2% of the people are problematic in Iraq. Of the 14 million, that means less than 300,000 present a problem. Unfortunately, 300,000 is a lot to kill and would make us look worse than Saddam, who killed far less than that number.
Well, our goal was to install a democracy under which a open and free society could take root and be a viable alternative to the nihilism of the Islamists' dark vision. I still say it was worth a try. It may be, in the end, that democracy doesn't thrive in an overtly Islamic society. If people don't find the will to control themselves in a democratic society, the alternatives are either anarchy, or oppression. Perhaps an oppressive strongman will emerge in Iraq. He may even be allied with the U.S., but that wasn't our Big Picture goal in Iraq, and in that sense, the Bush Doctrine will have proven to be a failure.
Bump for the morning
BUT in the meantime
Does he explain just how this would've changed the middle east?
I think a lot of use now feel, in hindsight, that would have been a better alternative to what has happened there since we went in,
And just what is that?
Back in the morning.
You might tell that to Colonel Douglas Burpee (USMC)
http://www.nysun.com/article/31393
#1 - I wonder how he got these figures - by conducting a Quinnipiac poll?
#2 - I think a lot of the problem is the people who are creating difficulties are not Iraqis but Iranians and Saudis and Syrians who are stirring the pot, but remain beyond reach - thanks to our flawed conduct of the war there and failure to comprehend or address the extent of it.
# 3 - The way you win a war is by killing those who oppose you as quickly and ruthlessly as possible - numbers are irrelevant - it worked in WW2 among other instances. People who don't understand that have no busniess conducting a war and regardless of how sophisticated their weaponry, it is merely a child's tool in their hands.
I THOUGHT we learned this lesson in Viet Nam. Apparently I was mistaken.
""These people who commit terrorism have just adopted the face of Islam - nothing they say or do have anything to do with Islam,"
He's wrong.
I get a feeling that when we leave Iraq we're going to bringing a lot of natives back with us.
That would have just been, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". I don't think the Iraqi people would have stood for it.
And just what is that?
Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead. Loss of US prestige abroad. Loss of the Senate. Loss of the House. 2008 presidential chances badly damaged. Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself. Syria and Iran gained a huge amount of face and power in the Arab world by their success in fighting a proxy war in Iraq.
Back in the morning.
Sleep tight.
Islamic extremists—mad that the modern world both excites them, and ignores and passes them by. And of course they play to the millions of their brethren appeasers who don’t really want these radicals to bring them a Taliban Dark Ages, but sorta, kinda, like the idea that they kill a few of those arrogant infidel Westerners as blood sport.
- Victor Davis Hanson
Suppose we take General Pinochet (not a nice guy) as a real-life embodiment of Mumin Salih’s “General Ruthless”. Pinochet’s ruthlessness succeeded in eliminating the Chilean Marxist President Allende who was going around confiscating private property for the “greater good”. In the years following Pinochet’s coup Chile evolved into a free society with a thriving free market economy (at least by Latin American standards). I don’t know much about Chile, except that Chile’s “happy ending” is almost unique. In every other case I can think of, regimes set up by “just despots” have been unrelenting in their brutality and corruption.
Why has Chile worked out so well? Can anyone help here?
BTTT
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.