John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 09:16 AM 11/10/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: > >Yes. More importantly, if we had done it properly, external > (to Iraq) > >support for the terrorists would be minimized. As it is > (and as I stated > >before) we've created access for anti Americans throughout > the world to > >attack us. Do you really think that all these attacks are being > >coordinated by Baathists alone? > > I am sure that Al Qaeda is now involved in these attacks as > well... and I > am sure that they would have just left us alone in Iraq if only we had > found a few barrels of anthrax......
Well, Al Qaeda has been exhorting its members to reach Iraq and attack the US forces for months now. The borders are porous enough, so it is only a question of how obedient the cadres are. If the US had found a few barrels of anthrax or some signs of an active nuclear program or anything that might be even vaguely defined as a 'smoking gun', the world's reaction might have been different, more troops might have been forthcoming and with tighter border control, less of the international jihadis would have been able to slip into Iraq. > >But what the Bush administration didn't take into account was the > >difficulty of establishing democracy in a country that has > no tradition of > >democracy. > > I think that President Bush has the best respone to this "cultural > condescension:" > > Time after time, observers have questioned whether this > country or that > people or this group are ready for democracy, as if freedom > were a prize > you win from meeting our own Western standards of progress. Y'know, it's strange but I actually agree with Bush on this concept of cultural condescension. However, I doubt that that is what Doug was aiming at. There is a difference between 'cultural condescension' and adequate preparations for a declared war aim. This war was fought to liberate the Iraqis, it was very well known that Saddam was a dictator and had silenced all domestic opposition. It does take time to build up the basics of a democratic polity and society and when establishment of democracy is you declared goal, then you better take all factors into account. Long before the war started a lot of people were worried about the nitty-gritty of the establishment of democracy - who would be the political leaders, [Chalabi and Co have no domestic support], how would the Iraqis react to a Merkin occupation, how would things progress if a guerilla resistance starts.....and mostly, the answers to these questions were: 'We would be greeted with flowers, as liberators and we have such a good record of establishing democracy in Japan and Germany...'. So the Bush administration *did* fail to take into account the difficulties of establishing democracy in Iraq and it is not cultural condescension to say so - it is just a statement of fact. > It is worth noting that only democracy in the world where > both the Head of > Government and the Head of the Opposition are women is...... > Bangladesh. > > I am curious as to your explanation as to why Bangladesh is > more suited to > democracy than Iraq. Perhaps because Bangladesh has been practicing for democracy since the Act of 1919, because by the time East Pakistan was formed in 1947, people had organised themselves into political parties, had selected their leaders, were used to voting? Perhaps because the establishment of the state of Bangladesh was a result of people wanting their democratic rights back and wanting to be rid of Yahya Khan's repression? Mukti Bahini was a Bangaladeshi/East Pakistani organisation, Bangladesh already had a democratic tradition and there was no problem in terms of people needing time to form parties and chose leaders. The problem in Iraq is not that the Iraqis are unsuited to democracy [I don't think any people are unsuited for democracy] but simply that the normal democratic processes had been suspended for decades. It *is* going to take time to get them back in motion again and instability during the transitional period will not hurry up the process. > And again, why do you imagine that the average Iraqi is as > concerned about > the role of Halliburton in Iraq as you are? That's almost > mind-bogglingly bizzare. Not really all that bizarre. I would wager that Doug has been following the situation in Iraq and has been paying attention to the fact that not only the IGC but also the Iraqi businessmen and other Iraqis are busy criticising Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
