<who in the US admin says there will be no elections in any of those places?>
Oh, they don't come right out and say "We don't believe in democracy; we hate elections." Neither did Stalin. Rather, the NeoCons (like the Cold Warriors before them) just don't make it a priority. They set conditions that can't happen. They don't allow elections, until they are sure of the results. They only allow "responsible" people and parties in their supervised elections. They define any anti-American groups as terrorists, and outlaw them.
They destabilize elected governments that make the "wrong" choices. There are many ways, to create a gloss of democracy, while killing the substance.
In Afghanistan, we chose to walk away, and allow the warlords to re-arm and sieze 90% of the country. We could have chosen differently.
In Kuwait in 1991, we had total military control of that tiny nation. We chose to re-install the Emir. We could have made him a powerless figurehead, and held elections for a government that derived its powers from the people, but we decided not to. Who would have stopped us? Who could have? Sure, the Emir holds elections. So did Stalin. So does Castro.
And, in Iraq, we promised elections quickly, and now (according to today's news), they may be held in 2004. Or later. Not before. And we're already saying who we will, and won't, let win the election. |
