It doesn't have to be by our standards. But there are mechanisms for ensuring that vote fraud is minimal. ....
We may be arguing in agreement.
If you recall, I've supported the creation of an Iraqi oil trust, into which royalties are paid for the DIRECT benefit of the Iraqi population (ala Alaskan permanent fund). It will give them direct ownership of the oil.. And few people will tolerate those who would take $$$ out of their pockets (insurgents and dictators).
Is that so bad?
It's a fine idea, as long as you recognize that the entire population has been operating under a system of bribes and corruption for at least the last 20 years. How quickly do you expect them to transition out of the mentality? Where there's money there will be corruption. And those that keep the accounts will be corrupted.
Because, IMO, the goal HAS TO BE for the Iraqis to govern themselves and establish their own security.
But we have to make it known that if they attempt to become their own little warlord and challenge the national government (or CPA authority), they will be confronted.
There you go,... ~You have to govern yourselves as long as it's the way we tell you to. That reminds me of Rumsfeld saying that we will not allow an Islamic state like Iran has. Really. If they want one, you're going to prohibit it and how is that self governing.
I don't know how you view Saddam's treatment of women within his day...but in the recent Iraqi poll, the majority of Iraqis wanted women in a more traditional role in society. Perhaps bizarre to our way of thinking, Saddam was a damn liberal progressive with respect to women's rights in Iraq. In anticipation of you bringin up rape rooms....rape isn't about sex, it's not about women's rights, it's about power and control and you get power and control over a person by committing the most offensive and humiliating act you can think of.
The fundamental mistake this Administration has made is to project values and culture on the Iraqis. If it's American, it's what everyone wants. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't listen and don't want to listen. They have an expected outcome and that's what is going to happen. Failure is an option. It may not be the option of choice but it is an option. If they were to recognize what environment they are operating in [and they don't] they might have had an objective that they could accomplish.
While my earlier suggestion may have been good, it's not going to happen. Instead, they're going for the option of rhetoric. If we tell them they have sovereignty in June, they might just believe it. I don't think the Iraqis are that stupid. They know that sovereignty with limited authority is not sovereignty. Sistani has publicly said so.
On an esoteric note. People generally don't want democracy. People want to be left alone to do what they want. Anarchy doesn't do that very well. If nothing else, you're neighbors won't leave you alone. You need a government of some kind. If what the majority of people want is to live under Islamic law, that's what they'll get given the choice.
I might say that of all the western "democratic" countries, the US is the least democratic. While all of them have Constitutional republics of one form or another, the measure that I would point to as representative of a democracy is the public's involvement in elections. The US has the lowest percentage of voter participation in the Western world. We don't want "democracy" we want to be left alone and not participate in the decision process.
Further, the other countries have [or can have] national referenda on subject of import. A country can vote on increasing taxes, having a national health care system, etc.. We don't on a national level [other than Constitutional amendments. We don't want to be bothered with the details. Elect a President and a Congress and that's the end of it.
jttmab |
