An Abyss Called Iraq
Patrick Carlock
April 08, 2007
I'm going to dare to proclaim the unthinkable: Democracy isn't for every country. My reasoning is that when a nation whose people are so divisive and uncivilized they must war with each other, with little hope of factions learning to coexist peacefully, as evidenced by history, what hope does such a nation have on the immediate horizon for democracy to take root? Can democracy be a viable system in such a country? I realize it is an American ideal to think that all countries deserve democracy, but, after this Iraq debacle, I’m not so sure. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Let's take a look at this further: I'm offering the idea that, for such a nation, the only way it can be kept under control is via a strongman type dictator. Bill Maher has often said this on TV, jokingly, but come to think of it, I don't think he was joking, and I'm beginning to see why, now that Iraq has become an endless quagmire.
Of course, the only way to know for certain is to allow more time for the democracy we have attempted to plant to take root. However, can America afford it for the length of time it might take? If democracy takes root in a reasonable amount of time, and the warring factions learn to co-exist, then the assertion is wrong. By invading Iraq, Bush took the biggest gamble ever taken by a President, and now it seems that he has lost the gamble in that our nation has descended into an bottomless pit of a war with no desirable outcome on the foreseeable horizon.
Democracy can only take root and blossom, in my view, when the population of a country's collective level of civility, desire and appreciation for democracy reaches a minimum threshold. In Iraq, it may be true that the country has not reached this collective threshold. Because of this idea, our nation should reassess its foreign policy of spreading democracy, and if we do it, we should be darn certain, with hard studies and cultural assessments, of whether democracy has a chance in a given region. Moreover, spreading democracy at the barrel of gun is a policy we should abandon, and one that I believe is un-American in the first place. There are no meters or instruments to help us measure and make such an evaluation; we must study the history of the region in question. Bush, I fear, made no such serious study.
Bush has made a blunder of a magnitude the likes of which our country has never experienced. Of course, Viet Nam comes to mind, but with Viet Nam, after we left, we did not have to worry much about rising gas prices and instability with long range consequences in the region.
It is clear Bush doesn't understand the complexities and consequences of meddling with the deep rooted religious factionalism existent in the middle east. I believe that the quagmire in Iraq is the ultimate result of an simplistic view of the issues in that region. We need a president who has better depth perception on foreign affairs; for it seems that our current President can only see the world in monochrome. We need a president who has the wisdom not to allow himself to be surrounded only by yes men.
I've heard the argument that many Democrats in Congress bear responsibility for the war, too, since they voted with the President on the war. Yes they do bear responsibility, and as often as I hear this argument introduced, rarely do I hear the following idea, which should accompany it:
All of the Americans, Allied personnel, and innocent Iraqis who have lost limbs, been injured, would not have lost limbs and been injured, and all of those who died, would still be alive, had Gore, or any (real) democrat, for that matter, been elected. I believe that with all my heart.
The Republicans and hawkish Democrats keep shouting that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. The logic seems impeccable, but the problem is, which is glaringly apparent now, the alternative seems to be worse: an abyss for America . I don't like Saddam any more than the next guy, but, frankly, I'm growing more weary about this particular swan song.
Perhaps it would have been better to have replaced Saddam with another dictator who was more benign, however, benign dictators, unfortunately, are in short supply.
Thanks a lot, President Bush, for the abyss called Iraq, I hope you are happy, because I doubt most Americans are.
Let's take a look at this further: I'm offering the idea that, for such a nation, the only way it can be kept under control is via a strongman type dictator. Bill Maher has often said this on TV, jokingly, but come to think of it, I don't think he was joking, and I'm beginning to see why, now that Iraq has become an endless quagmire.
Of course, the only way to know for certain is to allow more time for the democracy we have attempted to plant to take root. However, can America afford it for the length of time it might take? If democracy takes root in a reasonable amount of time, and the warring factions learn to co-exist, then the assertion is wrong. By invading Iraq, Bush took the biggest gamble ever taken by a President, and now it seems that he has lost the gamble in that our nation has descended into an bottomless pit of a war with no desirable outcome on the foreseeable horizon.
Democracy can only take root and blossom, in my view, when the population of a country's collective level of civility, desire and appreciation for democracy reaches a minimum threshold. In Iraq, it may be true that the country has not reached this collective threshold. Because of this idea, our nation should reassess its foreign policy of spreading democracy, and if we do it, we should be darn certain, with hard studies and cultural assessments, of whether democracy has a chance in a given region. Moreover, spreading democracy at the barrel of gun is a policy we should abandon, and one that I believe is un-American in the first place. There are no meters or instruments to help us measure and make such an evaluation; we must study the history of the region in question. Bush, I fear, made no such serious study.
Bush has made a blunder of a magnitude the likes of which our country has never experienced. Of course, Viet Nam comes to mind, but with Viet Nam, after we left, we did not have to worry much about rising gas prices and instability with long range consequences in the region.
It is clear Bush doesn't understand the complexities and consequences of meddling with the deep rooted religious factionalism existent in the middle east. I believe that the quagmire in Iraq is the ultimate result of an simplistic view of the issues in that region. We need a president who has better depth perception on foreign affairs; for it seems that our current President can only see the world in monochrome. We need a president who has the wisdom not to allow himself to be surrounded only by yes men.
I've heard the argument that many Democrats in Congress bear responsibility for the war, too, since they voted with the President on the war. Yes they do bear responsibility, and as often as I hear this argument introduced, rarely do I hear the following idea, which should accompany it:
All of the Americans, Allied personnel, and innocent Iraqis who have lost limbs, been injured, would not have lost limbs and been injured, and all of those who died, would still be alive, had Gore, or any (real) democrat, for that matter, been elected. I believe that with all my heart.
The Republicans and hawkish Democrats keep shouting that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. The logic seems impeccable, but the problem is, which is glaringly apparent now, the alternative seems to be worse: an abyss for America . I don't like Saddam any more than the next guy, but, frankly, I'm growing more weary about this particular swan song.
Perhaps it would have been better to have replaced Saddam with another dictator who was more benign, however, benign dictators, unfortunately, are in short supply.
Thanks a lot, President Bush, for the abyss called Iraq, I hope you are happy, because I doubt most Americans are.
Print
Email
