Im 26 y/o and can't even remember most of the 80's but this is beginning to loook like the biggest blunder of foreign policy since Vietnam, and more dangerous to our national security in its long term implications than vietnam given the nature of the gov't that could come to power in Iraq.  The fact that Colin Powel and Bremer have both said on record that we will leave Iraq if asked and now Powell saying in public that "we will have to accept" any govt in Iraq is evedence that this whole war could spell disaster for the US in the short and long term.  
   82% of the Iraqi people see the US as occupires and want us out.  This is what happens when you have fanatic ideologues pushing any agenda domestic or international, and especially a war without any thought as to its consequences.  The public didn't rise against Johnson in the 60's soon enough to stop that warmongering lunatic who lied to sink us deeper into Vietnam, but I hope the public puts an end to the loonies of this admin.  

Dear EmeraldVodka, you are indeed so enligthened at the ripe old age of 26. Lucky the organization that you work for to have such an outstanding man as part of their team. Hope they take good care of you.

The danger of what Bush did is to have radicalized the 1.4 billion muslim world beyond the levels we have ever seen, and polarized the whole world against us.  Unless we kick these people out of office in November, not in a neck & neck election,  but in a landslide defeat, we are in for hard times ahead; being isolated, our executives in danger of losing their lives abroad, and further closing of markets to us.

I am a Scotch on the rocks man, but for the sake of your name, I am going to try Vodka tonight, if you tell us what exactly emerald vodka is!

-- Modified on 5/16/2004 1:53:13 PM

You're right about our adventure in Iraq shaping up to be the "mother" of all bad ideas. Fortunately, the time scale for the American public to recognize it has been amazingly fast. People who didn't live through the Vietnam era are unaware that, until the Tet offensive in '68, that there was much popular support in the U.S. for the war. Then too, the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs, which in terms of impact I would liken to the release of the Pentagon papers, took place only a year after George W./Tony Blair ordered war on Iraq in 2003.

There has been much speculation as to why Americans are much less tolerant of these sorts of fiascos. Try as they might, George W. has had only limited success controlling all of the information outlets, especially with the internet. Actually, a speeding up of everything was predicted in an amusing '60's short story by R.A. Lafferty, in which people lived out their entire lives in a single day.

the people who are running are looking for votes, not US approval.  Give that a little time, you will see more nuanced positions about the US from the people in Iraq that are serious candidates for office.

Reon't forget Iraq is going to have an ELECTION. That means...

Yes, they're going to have an election, but how is that going to work with Shiites constituting ~60% of the Iraqi population. Both the Kurds and Sunnis fear that they'll be frozen out, while the Shiites are afraid that their votes will be diminished (sort of like the U.S. electoral college overriding the popular vote for Gore in 2000). Additionally, you have a nation with absolutely no democratic traditions - not really a nation at all, since it was artifically "created" by British partition.

Not by the popular vote.  Anyone who wants to change that can start a petition drive to revise the constitution.  My suggestion is that you spend your time on other things, the document has worked well, with few revisions, since it was ratified.  Bush won the 2000 election, please move on to November 2004 to correct what you view as a mistaken vote by those who voted for him.
    I agree that pulling out of Iraq now and allowing a theocracy to develop will be a menacing situation that will come back to victimize innocent US citizens.  If rule by zealots happens in Iraq, this country would have wasted the precious lives of many brave men and women and nothing would have changed as a result of their sacrifice.

-- Modified on 5/16/2004 5:24:16 PM

The thrust of my above post was to describe the difficulties inherent in holding democratic elections in Iraq, and not particularly to revisit the US election of 2000.

However, it is inherent in the drafting of the Constitution that numerous founding fathers held a great distrust of direct democracy, particularly in the election of presidents. Hence, their development of the Electoral College, which does diminish the relative value of an individual's vote, should the voter live in a 'populous' state. I would refer you to the Federalist Papers, particularly those of Alexander Hamilton (e.g., Federalist Paper #68).

And since we're apparently doing the Iraqis the great favor of drafting a Constitution for them, issues such as direct versus representational democracy are a matter of some import. Indeed, the only way that an Islamic theocracy can be practically avoided if a 'direct' democratic model is used in Iraq, would be for the Sunni's and Kurd's to follow the old Cook County dictum: vote early and often.

-- Modified on 5/16/2004 5:47:27 PM

-- Modified on 5/16/2004 8:04:46 PM

-- Modified on 5/16/2004 10:10:19 PM

... it is their country.  Democratic traditions have to start somewhere.  Maybe they will be able to make a go of it with a lot of effort.  It will be expensive for them (as for us) in money and lives.

Iraq, as it is constituted, may not be an appropriate place for democracy, because of it's de-facto composition of a 60% Shiite majority, and a couple of ~20% ethnic minorities.  What happens when the 60% Shiites vote to persecute the other 20% minorities?  

It is arguable that Democracy might only work in scenarios where there is NOT a fixed ethnic majority that can continuously hold sway over other minorities.

It is even arguable that Iraq as presently constituted REALLY ought to be 3 separate sovereign countries.  It is only in the furtherance of the interests of the West that Iraq is even constituted as it presently is (It was the Brits who partitioned it this way, with the support of the Turks after WWII).  This entire dynamic was never given appropriate thought by the Bush Administration, and is yet another example of Western Arrogance and a lack of understanding of the ethnic roots that exist in the region.  After all, the Bush administration thought that these folks would be so busy throwing roses at us as their liberators that they wouldn't have time to revert to all of the centuries-old factionalism and hatreds that had divided them prior to Saddam's use of an iron fist to keep the nation in line.  It seems entirely likely that this region will eventually break down into civil war, and Al Qaida will end up with a bigger, richer playground in Iraq than they EVER had in Afghanistan.

And when it blows up, I'm afraid Iraq is never going to be "nuanced" about the US afterward.  What we're going to end up with is a "failed nation" right smack in the middle of a strategic, economically important region.  

I thought when Bush moved our armies in that it would take a Bismark to make this work.  Bush is not a Bismark.  Worse, he didn't have a Bismark advising him.  

/Zin

...a country with divisions like Iraq learning how to live with itself and it's neighbors.  The US is very hetrogeneous: but we manage to toddle along as a people.  I have great problems claiming success for Iraq is impossible or highly unlikely.  Iraq has little choice but to learn how to get along.  We may not like the consequences, but the Iraquis will like the consequences even less!  I am going to start off assuming that the Iraquis are smart enough to think see that their own self- interest requires them to learn how to live together.  It won't be easy and it will take longer than our lifetimes, but I hope they will learn to respect each other and get along.  Democracy will give them the messy framework to help them realize their dreams.  

(I'm sorry, sounding like a cockeyed optimist today.  Please excuse...).  Harry

... If everybody is lucky, there will bee enough good will to get it right.

protect the rights of minorities if they are going to be viable.   The US (more or less) has learned to respect minority rights.  So has most of Europe..  Splitting Iraq into 3 separate countries isn't feasible for a whole variety of reasons.  

Lets give them some small chance to at least try it.  We have lots to gain and little to lose.  We will be there anyway, regardless of who wins the election.  

Harry

-- Modified on 5/19/2004 11:30:21 AM

I see no evidence that any of the factions which we are dealing with in Iraq have any tolerance toward ethnic or religious minorities.  

Our entire Democratic society developed around the understanding that ALL of us were, at some time, or in some sense, societal outcasts, and that it was only through tolerating others that our own rights could be insured.  This lesson must be learned before Democracy can flourish.  What evidence do you have that the Iraqi citizenry has ever had this cultural imperative inculcated within itself?  I don't see it there, and without it, Democracy will not work.

... and Islam has a long history of tolerence that it can draw on if the people want to do the right thing.  It took us a long time to learn these things -- we still are.

They will NOT be able to split into separate "pure" enclaves.  The geopolitics of the region won't accept it.  The nation won't cede the oil to the north without a fight.  They will have to figure it out.  

This is a lot like an encounter with a new lady.  Think of it this way.  You're horny, the woman you are with is older and not as nice as her pictures, but you go ahead anyway because this is the best alternative you have available.  Often it works out pretty well.  


) Harry

I honestly don't know what the exit strategy ought to be.  I am convinced that there is NOT a viable one that won't cost us hundreds of Billions of dollars and THOUSANDS of American lives.  This campaign in Iraq is a fiasco.  

We (not the Iraqis, we AMERICANS) were MUCH better off under Saddam, with Saddam being reigned in by international sanctions and the THREAT of attack, than we are after his actual overthrow.

... can we make lemonade out of this???

Once Bush has been offerred up in sacrifice, we can then go back to the other nations and say, mea culpa, but stabilizing Iraq is now in EVERYONE's interests.  If we agreed to share the rebuilding effort among contractors from other nations in an equitable manner, and dropped the arrogance that Bush/Cheney have made their own trademark, there would not be nearly the degree of "let the U.S. hang from their own rope" attitude that is pervasive in the international community today.  At the end of the day, our allies in Europe and the Middle East will be pragmatists, as long as they get to claim to their populace that we were right all along.  This requires an act of contrition on our part, and turning Bush out of office is the first step on that path.  And also only fitting, as it WAS, after all, his fiasco, even though he has bequeathed it to all of us.