re: The Mind of Our Enemies:
To call the present Iraqi government "consensual" is Orwellian. It was appointed by conquering foreigners. The "Governing" Council will exist as long as foreign soldiers prop it up, and not a day longer. The members of the "Governing" Council live in fortified areas, protected from their fellow Iraqis by American guns.
The assumption here seems to be Iraq was not propped up and maintained by guns in the past. Multiple graves and reports of atrocity after atrocity performed at the behest of the Bathists tosses a huge cloud on this assumption. America's benign presence as compared to Hussien's brutal one, turns your assumption upside down.
Before the American Empire swallowed up two more nations since 9/11, the daily news told of suicide bombs only in Palestine. Now, it happens daily in Iraq and Afghanistan also.
The problem with your point of view Jacob is it neglects to take into account the situation in these areas just a few short months ago. To some, the barbarity of the Taliban and cruelty of Hussein and the Bathists may be preferable. Although I doubt many who suffered on the other side of the law in Afghanistan or Iraq would agree with you. Women are free to walk the streets in Afghanistan now, they are free to become educated, and they are free to chart their own course in life. And yes, they are even free to elect their own government. Subservience to dictators and brutal regimes may by your cup of tea, it certainly is not mine.
Yes. And the first step in creating a truly consensual government, is seceding from the American Empire. Iran seceded 20 years ago. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan look wobbly. When the U.S. army violates Pakistani soil, invading the Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, as we must do to have any hope of defeating the Taliban, there will likely be an Islamic revolt there. Iran is, today, further along the road to democracy than any of the longterm U.S. client states (=colonies in all but name) surrounding it. They hold elections in Iran, unlike Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Funny, consensual governments have been created in Germany, they've been created in Japan and other places too all under the supposedly evil American Empire. As a matter of fact, using your logic, one could make the case Germany and Japan are still being held together by our 80 thousand troops stationed there. Of course, that notion would be ridiculous.
Already happened. Look at recent policy re N. Korea and Taiwan. Even NeoCons can learn the limits of American power.
Of course American power has its limits. Who has argued otherwise?
This is getting old. Evoking 9/11, to scare the American people into supporting every adventure the NeoCons can dream up, won't work any longer. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
It's all about 9/11 Jacob. If the planes had taken off an hour later, if the buildings in N.Y. had fallen sideways, hundreds of thousands of people would have died. America will no longer stand by and wait for the terrorists to attack us, we will go after them anywhere on this planet if deemed necessary to protect American lives.
Ostensible? I think he means, the illusion of self-government needs to be a bit more realistic, to be credible. As examples, he gives: holding press conferences. He wants better PR, but he doesn't want the reality of power. In particular, he doesn't want elections, and he doesn't want the oil or the army or the central government to be run by Iraqis. Real power, he insists must remain in American hands, indefinitely.
The government in Iraq is more representative today then it has been in history. It's not a perfect utopia of democracy, and likely won't be one for a long, long time, but progress is being made, despite the naysayers.
Only because the Shiites have been waiting patiently for us to fulfill our promises about "Iraq for Iraqis" and elections. But they are getting impatient. Time's up. Sistani has served notice, he won't settle for anything but "the consent of the governed": real elections, real power.
An open question we'll have to see answered in the coming months.
Wow. Not exactly enthusiastic about democracy, is he? Basically, he's willing to hold elections, as long as we win them. As long as they are properly "managed", so a "responsible" regime results. That was Stalin's attitude towards elections, too.
Stalin? Nice, I suppose I could invoke Hitler here and say many thought his government was preferable to the allied invasion.
In the last few months, in the writings of apologists for Empire such as this, I smell a whiff of humility. 6 months ago, it was all triumphant jingoism. Never admit anyone ever made any mistakes. The tone has changed. Next, they'll be assigning blame for their defeat and withdrawal under fire.
Ahhh, the famous jingoism phrase of the left. Nuff said.
There is nothing more negative than championing killing as the solution to all problems. And that is what the NeoCons have been doing.
No, the neocons have been saving lives. Just the opposite of what you claim.
What is there about Thou Shalt Not Kill, that is so hard to understand?
If a seriel murderer is caught under fire and killed, do you also brand the police murderers as well? Were the allied troops who killed Hitlers armies murderers as well, were the troops who freed the Jews held in concentration camps murderers?
Finally, would you arrest our returning GI's and put them behind bars for murdering? |
