I wish you'd URL these blogs. I'm trying to catch up and it takes time to do these things, whereas you had the URL right there when you copied the text.
Anyway, the criticism of the US move to move the ME in a more modern direction often stems from how the difficulties certain aspects of culture and history there would make it difficult to move to democracy. They're right.
But they ignore, for whatever reason, the possibility there are aspects of the same which might make it possible.
?The Bush administration?s notion of creating in Iraq something that even vaguely resembles a Wilsonian-style democracy, in a country where security has traditionally come not from the ballot box but from force of arms
Organized violence has always been the winner everywhere and in the ME always for the rulers. "Security" has never been the outcome, and not surprisingly, because tyranny has always been the aim.
Democratic forces there have never been able to organize their violence, except in Israel.
In case of Iraq it seems the only folk who recognize this are Bush, some of the military there, Bremer, and the majority of the Iraqi people.
Democratically organizing violence takes a lot more intricate processes and time than the tyrannical violence they've had. Europe and N America took @ thousand years. Iraqis don't have that time and they don't need it - what they need is security to get on with the project. And motivation to get on with the project with celerity - which they have in the possibilty of US withdawal and the loss of the security guarantee.
The consensus seems to be that the Bush Administration overreached in its war aims and/or undercommitted to providing adequate resources for success.
I don't believe either claim is entirely correct. The US appears to be having some success. It could not be having it if aspects of culture and history in Iraq were not supportive and if resources US has put into the country were not, to some degree, adequate. |
