[Northern Alliance]

The article starts slowly, but the whole thing is worth the read. Basically it proposes that we should have installed a "ruthless" strong man. 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, but this is from the perspective of a Muslim Arab. Some FReepers may take offense with the harshness of his criticisms of our approach. Don't flame me for it!

[ZULU]

"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.

[wodinoneeye]

" Failure in Iraq may signify that the seeds of destruction of the western civilization "

No, it signifies that Islamic radicals and fanatics likely will lead to the isolation and possible eradication of alot of Muslims who are not capable of joining the rest of the civilized World.

[BW2221]

This would be a good read for Bush, Gates and the rest of the leadership.

[My2Cents]

Basically it proposes that we should have installed a "ruthless" strong man.

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.

[Valin]

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.

[SuziQ]

Basically it proposes that we should have installed a "ruthless" strong man.

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.

[Critical Bill]

This I believe sums up the problem:

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

[haroldeveryman]

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?

[avacado]

"If America cannot win this war then it is hard to believe it can win any war. America’s failure in Iraq may leave a long lasting scar, but the Americans have can only blame themselves before blaming the others."

That was a good article and I have to agree with the above given the whole analysis of the author.

[Popocatapetl]

Never underestimate the power of democracy. That it is a better way of living and doing business is obvious to even illiterate farmers, once they have seen it done. That is why tribalists and Sharia Law advocates hate it so much, is because it supplants their efforts at organization. But it is noteworthy in Iraq, that even the tribal leaders are coming around to the superiority of democracy as a system. They are wise enough to be willing to cede personal power for the benefit of their people. Believers in democracy are revolutionaries, but not obvious ones. They can and do look like everyone, and may be open and direct, or discreet about their beliefs. They may be a member of a royal family, a merchant, a worker, a bureaucrat, anyone. They overtly and subtly inject democratic ideas into what they do, and their beliefs spread like a virus. Even in China, the government is distraught because rural peasants now often say, "Let's vote on it!" And every argument against voting makes you sound like you think everyone else is stupid. So what does the introduction of democracy mean to Iraq? It means that the human drama, and sectarian strife will continue until the Iraqis find their balance point, where the Sunnis behave and the Shiites feel they have gotten their revenge. But surprisingly, they will continue to vote. And Sunnis will have power according to their numbers. Because Iraq has tried democracy, and likes it. Remember that democracy doesn't mean an end to problems, even in the most peace-loving of nations. Even in the United States. But it does spread, again, like a virus. The democratic revolution has been introduced to the Middle East. Every country in the region now has to contend with democrats, and the old paradigms of tribal authority, Sharia Law, and dictatorship running the place are numbered. The war in Iraq ended in 2003. What has existed since is a de facto occupation. But Iraq now has a democratic government that will be very hard to displace; and they now have a very large military and national police, who are getting some very good training to protect and defend their nation. Because of what we have done, Iraq will survive. Now, our task before we leave is to make sure that Iraq will thrive. And that every nation in the ME now must look over their shoulder and wonder if a democrat is behind them.

[Polybius]

The article starts slowly, but the whole thing is worth the read. Basically it proposes that we should have installed a "ruthless" strong man. I think a lot of use now feel, in hindsight, that would have been a better alternative to what has happened .........

But, if we had done that from the beginning, the U.S. would have been bitterly criticized from one end of the political spectrum to the other in both the U.S. and Iraq.

Now that the noble experiment has come up against the sad reality of the dysfunctional Iraqi common man, there is still plenty of time to set up the strongman friendly to the U.S. who will deal with the insurgent threat and the sectarian militia threats in a far less Politically Correct way.

[okie01]

I am still puzzled, even today, about the way the western media handled the Iraqi issue, and why the Iraqi claims of dying children were allowed to be repeated without ever investigating its truth or drawing the attention to Saddam’s responsibility on all this. I am afraid the Americans did not present their case well to the world and left their opponent’s point of view to enjoy an almost unchallenged dominance.

Mr. Salih evidently does not realize that the western media were (and still are) on Saddam's side.

Nor that the job of "presenting the American case to the world" was left to traitors like Eason Jordan.

Anti-Americanism runs deep the western media. Indeed, it is the animating idea for most journalists. And we Americans shall eventually pay an awful price for it.