I certainly agree that Saddam had to go, but now the question remains, can Iraq ever manage itself?
In fact, can a peaceful democracy or republic exist in any islamic area where violent hardliners wreak havoc as a means of pushing their agenda.
"I certainly agree that Saddam had to go, but now the question remains, can Iraq ever manage itself?"
the leaders they have chosen leave me to wonder if it matters
In fact, can a peaceful democracy or republic exist in any islamic area where violent hardliners wreak havoc as a means of pushing their agenda.
-----
A very good question. One that Washington seems to be blind to. It really distills down to "do all the people really want it?" Will they support a single Constitutional government that takes precedent over a religion running a country fostered by a bunch of warring mullahs? Frankly, based on our history there, I doubt it.
It is time that Washington draws the line. The Iraqis MUST stand on their own two feet. Eighteen months is not going to make much difference. We did all the heavy lifting for the Iraqis -- if they want a modern, Constitutional government, then let them stand for it now.
Given the premise you establish, could you explain something? On what basis do you argue that replacing an anti-Iranian Ba'athist SOB with a fundamentalist pro-Iranian Shi'ite SOB has been worth all this American blood and treasure?
Peace and liberty can only exist in the long run if the people, taken together, are willing to pay the price for it. Until the majority of Iraqis are prepared to fight and die to preserve their liberty and democracy, they won't be able to keep them.
There used to be a country called Yugoslavia. Tito held it together by brute force, and demanding that different groups place worship of Communism in front of their ethnic heritage. It sort of worked for a while.