Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Iraqis are not ready for democracy
The U.S and its allies have made a serious mistake by invading Iraq in order to save it from Saddam Hussein. The mistake it made is in assuming that Iraqis value democracy as much as the Western nations do.
Arabs and Muslims are by nature followers of sheiks, imams and caliphs. They appear to be hierarchical rather than egalitarian as evidenced by their treatment of women. In Muslim culture women are second-rate citizens with few personal liberties. I will not debate this issue here for it is not the topic in question and frankly if the women want to be equal they will have to fight their own fight.
However, I am convinced that democracy is a way of living and not just a form of government. The right to vote is only the first step to a democratic lifestyle. In order to enjoy this lifestyle one must be able to express an opinion without fear of arrest or punishment. Such freedom is by and large non-existent in Muslim countries. It therefore is foolish to try to impose democracy on a people who are unprepared or hostile to it. They simply do not know how to live in a democracy, especially if they are fundamentalists.
For several decades Iraqis were under the yoke of a tyrant and therefore have no idea of what it means to be responsible for making free choices in life. All they are familiar with are violence and fear. Let loose following the destruction of Saddam it is not surprising that the Iraqis should behave like berserk ex-slaves. Who can blame them? They are now relishing the freedom to kill anyone with an opposing view. How could the average normal Westerner conceive of a situation where sectarian violence would follow the removal of a tyrant? And yet isn't that exactly what is happening among the Palestinians as well? They have a common foreign adversary and yet they fight among themselves. This shows that they are functioning among the lower levels of the evolutionary tree. They are blind to the bigger picture which may bring peace and development and a normal existence for them all. At the moment any voice of reason is hushed up. So it is in Iraq.
What really concerns me now is the future outcome of the Iraqi war. I do not want to see another body bag with the remains of an American soldier returned to a grieving nation. Such deaths are sacrifices for no good reason. The Iraqis don't appreciate the sacrifice. In fact they resent it. It is only now that Americans in general are realising that there will be no benefit in giving up one's life for a lost cause and the whole thing has turned sour and hopeless.
Not that I support the "head in the sand" attitude of those who never wanted to act in the first place. Something had to be done but Arabs don't respect peaceful negotiation. It is alien to them. There is no doubt that Saddam had weapons and that they are hidden in the Syrian desert somewhere. I never cared whether he did or not. The WMD excuse was always going to be lame when one had to depend on the loyalty of the cowardly French, the left-wing Germans, and the double-crossing Russians to support any action. How smug they all sound now! But do they have the right to be smug when they should be scared shitless because of their own internal problems with Muslims?
Eurabia is the real nightmare which faces Europe and even moderate cultures such as that of the Scandinavians and the Dutch are now apprehensive about having allowed Muslims into their countries. When problems with the Muslims escalate further as we have already witnessed in Paris I hope that America holds firm and leaves Europe to its fate. It will be interesting to see how long it will take those cowardly Europeans to ask for American assistance.
As for me, I would not have attacked Iraq, because I believe that there is a better and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem.Get rid of the leader who is encouraging and funding terrorism. The one who paid Palestinians to become suicide bombers in Israel and in other places. It would have been much more humane this way and fewer lives on both sides would have been lost. A monster can't exist for long without a head. I am aware of the fact that there was a stable of monsters ready to step into Saddam's shoes, but perhaps one of the leaders might have seen the light and thought more of the well-being of Iraqis than of his own megalomania.
So what should happen at this stage? It's a wise man who knows when to call it quits. I would give the Iraqis a last vote. Do they want American help or not? If they say yes, then conditions must be set down. Terrorists and insurgents will have to be named and arrested with the aid of the Iraqi people themselves. If they vote no and I hope that they will do so, then leave them to their fate. Sit back and watch how Sunnis and Shiites continue to massacre each other as they try to dominate their Muslim "brothers". I hope that the Kurds will be left alone and when the dust settles, perhaps Iraq will be no more. It seems to be the direction they are heading anyway so why postpone the inevitable?
Arabs and Muslims are by nature followers of sheiks, imams and caliphs. They appear to be hierarchical rather than egalitarian as evidenced by their treatment of women. In Muslim culture women are second-rate citizens with few personal liberties. I will not debate this issue here for it is not the topic in question and frankly if the women want to be equal they will have to fight their own fight.
However, I am convinced that democracy is a way of living and not just a form of government. The right to vote is only the first step to a democratic lifestyle. In order to enjoy this lifestyle one must be able to express an opinion without fear of arrest or punishment. Such freedom is by and large non-existent in Muslim countries. It therefore is foolish to try to impose democracy on a people who are unprepared or hostile to it. They simply do not know how to live in a democracy, especially if they are fundamentalists.
For several decades Iraqis were under the yoke of a tyrant and therefore have no idea of what it means to be responsible for making free choices in life. All they are familiar with are violence and fear. Let loose following the destruction of Saddam it is not surprising that the Iraqis should behave like berserk ex-slaves. Who can blame them? They are now relishing the freedom to kill anyone with an opposing view. How could the average normal Westerner conceive of a situation where sectarian violence would follow the removal of a tyrant? And yet isn't that exactly what is happening among the Palestinians as well? They have a common foreign adversary and yet they fight among themselves. This shows that they are functioning among the lower levels of the evolutionary tree. They are blind to the bigger picture which may bring peace and development and a normal existence for them all. At the moment any voice of reason is hushed up. So it is in Iraq.
What really concerns me now is the future outcome of the Iraqi war. I do not want to see another body bag with the remains of an American soldier returned to a grieving nation. Such deaths are sacrifices for no good reason. The Iraqis don't appreciate the sacrifice. In fact they resent it. It is only now that Americans in general are realising that there will be no benefit in giving up one's life for a lost cause and the whole thing has turned sour and hopeless.
Not that I support the "head in the sand" attitude of those who never wanted to act in the first place. Something had to be done but Arabs don't respect peaceful negotiation. It is alien to them. There is no doubt that Saddam had weapons and that they are hidden in the Syrian desert somewhere. I never cared whether he did or not. The WMD excuse was always going to be lame when one had to depend on the loyalty of the cowardly French, the left-wing Germans, and the double-crossing Russians to support any action. How smug they all sound now! But do they have the right to be smug when they should be scared shitless because of their own internal problems with Muslims?
Eurabia is the real nightmare which faces Europe and even moderate cultures such as that of the Scandinavians and the Dutch are now apprehensive about having allowed Muslims into their countries. When problems with the Muslims escalate further as we have already witnessed in Paris I hope that America holds firm and leaves Europe to its fate. It will be interesting to see how long it will take those cowardly Europeans to ask for American assistance.
As for me, I would not have attacked Iraq, because I believe that there is a better and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem.Get rid of the leader who is encouraging and funding terrorism. The one who paid Palestinians to become suicide bombers in Israel and in other places. It would have been much more humane this way and fewer lives on both sides would have been lost. A monster can't exist for long without a head. I am aware of the fact that there was a stable of monsters ready to step into Saddam's shoes, but perhaps one of the leaders might have seen the light and thought more of the well-being of Iraqis than of his own megalomania.
So what should happen at this stage? It's a wise man who knows when to call it quits. I would give the Iraqis a last vote. Do they want American help or not? If they say yes, then conditions must be set down. Terrorists and insurgents will have to be named and arrested with the aid of the Iraqi people themselves. If they vote no and I hope that they will do so, then leave them to their fate. Sit back and watch how Sunnis and Shiites continue to massacre each other as they try to dominate their Muslim "brothers". I hope that the Kurds will be left alone and when the dust settles, perhaps Iraq will be no more. It seems to be the direction they are heading anyway so why postpone the inevitable?
# posted by Lili Gans @ 2:30 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
Ah, Lili, But how would you have achieved the dismantling of the Iranian military ambition except through the invasion of Iraq? Would you have moved an Armada through the Persian Gulf? Not likely. And then what? Iran is a vast country that can not be defeated by aircraft carriers. The war is going much better than reported. There are now more than 250,000 American military personnel in command of airfields flanking Iran, east and west.
And many Iraqis are ready for democracy: those who are not are blowing each other up (and those who they suspect of supporting their enemies or who might do so if not terrorized).
You are giving up too easily. This war must be won. I have never heard so many defeatists! The Iraqis are having a civil war? Really? What are the two sides? Is it a civil war or a war of religious factions? And how does this war, civil, factional or otherwise adversely effect the West's and America's war goals? I hate to sound callous but I'd hate more to sound like it were possible to win a war without shedding a drop of blood. We can't afford to be so childish!
And your comment about the evolutionary position of Arabs is almost as insulting as Khatami's statement at Harvard that America's policies created 9/11 as surely as if they had held a loaded gun to its own head and pulled the trigger, which metaphor reduced the Arabs to something less than human: a machine programmed to do one thing: a machine without will or thought: not even on the evolutionary scale: a creation not of God but man!
Well, at least you aren't as insulting to Arabs as Khatami. But you really aren't that far behind. They are ready for Democracy or they will have to become so. Anarchy is not an option with madmen proven, by the IAEA, to be enriching uranium to purities beyond civil energy needs.
Bernard Lewis pointed out the other day that the notion of freedom as we understand it in the West has had no standing in the Muslim world until recently. Justice, not political freedom, is the concept that moves the Muslim. But bit by bit and day by day, political freedom is making inroads: more and more Muslims are seeing political freedom as an important component of justice. I'm paraphrasing from memory.
Roosevelt was right: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
And many Iraqis are ready for democracy: those who are not are blowing each other up (and those who they suspect of supporting their enemies or who might do so if not terrorized).
You are giving up too easily. This war must be won. I have never heard so many defeatists! The Iraqis are having a civil war? Really? What are the two sides? Is it a civil war or a war of religious factions? And how does this war, civil, factional or otherwise adversely effect the West's and America's war goals? I hate to sound callous but I'd hate more to sound like it were possible to win a war without shedding a drop of blood. We can't afford to be so childish!
And your comment about the evolutionary position of Arabs is almost as insulting as Khatami's statement at Harvard that America's policies created 9/11 as surely as if they had held a loaded gun to its own head and pulled the trigger, which metaphor reduced the Arabs to something less than human: a machine programmed to do one thing: a machine without will or thought: not even on the evolutionary scale: a creation not of God but man!
Well, at least you aren't as insulting to Arabs as Khatami. But you really aren't that far behind. They are ready for Democracy or they will have to become so. Anarchy is not an option with madmen proven, by the IAEA, to be enriching uranium to purities beyond civil energy needs.
Bernard Lewis pointed out the other day that the notion of freedom as we understand it in the West has had no standing in the Muslim world until recently. Justice, not political freedom, is the concept that moves the Muslim. But bit by bit and day by day, political freedom is making inroads: more and more Muslims are seeing political freedom as an important component of justice. I'm paraphrasing from memory.
Roosevelt was right: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Ah, abu, I think that you are an idealist and that's not such a bad thing, apart from the fact that one day you may wake up to reality.
To say that the situation in Iraq is not good, is not being defeatist at all.
It's simply admitting that we gave too much credit to the Iraqis by believing that their religious allegiances and their mistrust of the West would be negated by the possibility of democratic freedom.
Your argument that things are going well because the U.S has a quarter of a million personnel in Iraq is proof that so many soldiers are deemed necessary to try to keep the factions from murdering one another.
I see no evidence that the rate of insurgency is lessening. Every day we are bombarded with statistics of how many Iraqis died that day and sadly, how many U.S young men and women perished.
That generation will feel that loss even more because the cause was in the defence of a nation (or truthfully several nations) who do not appreciate the sacrifice.
In fact, they resent it and call it an occupation. Now where have I heard that word before?
Whenever the Middle East is mentioned there is always the whiff of oil as a possible reason for involvement. Remember the defence of Kuwait?
Well, at that time I was hoping that Israel would discover a barrel or two of oil, so that nations like France etc might consider that Israel has a right to exist and to be respected.
By the way, I am not a pacifist. I used to decry the namby pamby soft approach that was taken in Vietnam. My favourite saying was "either you fight for real or you get out."
I was similarly dismayed when Israel would not take harder action against Hezbollah in the recent battles. Israel was too concerned about what its enemies thought. The sad truth is that no matter what concessions, gentleness and conciliation would be shown by Israel, the rest of the world would still be unimpressed and worse still, its enemies would be emboldened by this apparent sign of weakness.
The last time that Israel could be proud was at Entebbe, in my opinion.
I don't want to see another ounce of blood shed for the sake of the Iraqis. Now, I am not so naive as to think that all this is being done for the Iraqis. As you correctly say, it's to keep Iran in check.
Perhaps we are being shown very negative footage on TV because the journalists have to be sensational. I have very strong opinions about the scourge of the media. A few programmes from the BBC and CNN journalists are enough to rile me totally. Of course, Fox is too foxy also and I find some of the gung ho reporting extremely annoying.
I think I just went off the topic there, but yes, I am a very passionate person, as you may observe if you are interested enough to visit my own website at www.liligans.com
I would like to argue with you some more.
By the way, you were correct about Theodore Dalrymple. It was Front Page or City Journal. I saw your comment there and also gave my views on Pinker.
To say that the situation in Iraq is not good, is not being defeatist at all.
It's simply admitting that we gave too much credit to the Iraqis by believing that their religious allegiances and their mistrust of the West would be negated by the possibility of democratic freedom.
Your argument that things are going well because the U.S has a quarter of a million personnel in Iraq is proof that so many soldiers are deemed necessary to try to keep the factions from murdering one another.
I see no evidence that the rate of insurgency is lessening. Every day we are bombarded with statistics of how many Iraqis died that day and sadly, how many U.S young men and women perished.
That generation will feel that loss even more because the cause was in the defence of a nation (or truthfully several nations) who do not appreciate the sacrifice.
In fact, they resent it and call it an occupation. Now where have I heard that word before?
Whenever the Middle East is mentioned there is always the whiff of oil as a possible reason for involvement. Remember the defence of Kuwait?
Well, at that time I was hoping that Israel would discover a barrel or two of oil, so that nations like France etc might consider that Israel has a right to exist and to be respected.
By the way, I am not a pacifist. I used to decry the namby pamby soft approach that was taken in Vietnam. My favourite saying was "either you fight for real or you get out."
I was similarly dismayed when Israel would not take harder action against Hezbollah in the recent battles. Israel was too concerned about what its enemies thought. The sad truth is that no matter what concessions, gentleness and conciliation would be shown by Israel, the rest of the world would still be unimpressed and worse still, its enemies would be emboldened by this apparent sign of weakness.
The last time that Israel could be proud was at Entebbe, in my opinion.
I don't want to see another ounce of blood shed for the sake of the Iraqis. Now, I am not so naive as to think that all this is being done for the Iraqis. As you correctly say, it's to keep Iran in check.
Perhaps we are being shown very negative footage on TV because the journalists have to be sensational. I have very strong opinions about the scourge of the media. A few programmes from the BBC and CNN journalists are enough to rile me totally. Of course, Fox is too foxy also and I find some of the gung ho reporting extremely annoying.
I think I just went off the topic there, but yes, I am a very passionate person, as you may observe if you are interested enough to visit my own website at www.liligans.com
I would like to argue with you some more.
By the way, you were correct about Theodore Dalrymple. It was Front Page or City Journal. I saw your comment there and also gave my views on Pinker.
The presence of a quarter million troops in Iraq need not be read as an indication of how many it takes to keep the lid on Iraqi factional fighting which, frankly, would be of no real concern to Americans (and that's not a knock) if their own weren't dying in the crossfire. The purpose of the presence of American troops is much broader than the problem of Iraqi Democracy. The primary reason for the presence of the troops is the broader war. I believe Iran, for instance, is on the list and Iraq in and of itself has never been the military objective.
Regarding Israel, her big mistake was made in 1991 when it bought the Patriot system in exchange for staying out of the Gulf War. Israel had always retaliated for attacks and not doing so when the scuds hit put the Israeli government on its heels and caused Israelis to lose faith in its succeeding governments (excepting Sharon's). It has not yet recovered and the proof of that was the Summer War against (you pick) [Lebanon] [Hizballah]. Had Israel retaliated to the scud attacks there would have been no surprise at all and quite possibly no condemnation of Israel's counterattack.
I am anything but an idealist, Lili. GHWB made a big mistake in getting an enormous coalition that hobbled his actions, just as promises to Montgomery made the Americans stay Patton, a move that cost the allies dearly. As Machiavelli wrote, a citizen's army is the best, paid mercenaries second best but alliances with other powers are the worst because they will make you either give up parts of your conquest or worse, stop before your objectives are achieved.[paraphrased from memory] Well, we know who didn't read Machiavelli!
As for comments about oil motives, it costs nothing to buy oil compared to the cost of fighting wars. I'm surprised to hear you mention this obvious canard.
Regarding Israel, her big mistake was made in 1991 when it bought the Patriot system in exchange for staying out of the Gulf War. Israel had always retaliated for attacks and not doing so when the scuds hit put the Israeli government on its heels and caused Israelis to lose faith in its succeeding governments (excepting Sharon's). It has not yet recovered and the proof of that was the Summer War against (you pick) [Lebanon] [Hizballah]. Had Israel retaliated to the scud attacks there would have been no surprise at all and quite possibly no condemnation of Israel's counterattack.
I am anything but an idealist, Lili. GHWB made a big mistake in getting an enormous coalition that hobbled his actions, just as promises to Montgomery made the Americans stay Patton, a move that cost the allies dearly. As Machiavelli wrote, a citizen's army is the best, paid mercenaries second best but alliances with other powers are the worst because they will make you either give up parts of your conquest or worse, stop before your objectives are achieved.[paraphrased from memory] Well, we know who didn't read Machiavelli!
As for comments about oil motives, it costs nothing to buy oil compared to the cost of fighting wars. I'm surprised to hear you mention this obvious canard.
I agree with you about the need for Israel to retaliate immediately that it is attacked. But the only reason it did not do so is because America asked it not to. Israel feels that America is its only ally and therefore has an obligation to keep it content.
In my opinion, every nation only cares about itself and depending on an ally is unwise. (as you pointed out as well) You are writing as if I had said that Israel should not act whereas I wrote the exact opposite.
Please note that I did say that the last time I was proud of Israel's actions was at Entebbe.
Why? Because it didn't ask its "friends" what it should do. Also it did what it thought it should do, that is, save its citizens.
Now we have feeble negotiations with every man and his dog and sound like Shylock in his awful speech about "if you prick us do we not bleed?' when my reaction would have been "if you prick us, you'll regret it."
Having studied Machiavelli at a post-grad level (graduate level in your country) I am quite familiar with his work and am a great admirer.
What really bugs me about the West is that it is forever apologising for breathing. It doesn't want to do anything without consensus-which one will never get as long as Europe hates the U.S.
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe is causing havoc and so far nobody has done anything about it except to say that he's a naughty man.
Compare that with the condemnation of Israel as soon as it acts to protect itself e.g fence, retaliation for missiles sent by Gazans or Hezbollah.
As for the oil question, you must be aware that every time the U.S makes any move, the rest of the world cries out "it's only because of the oil". Now I don't believe that oil is "the factor" but it is a possible factor in the argument.
My wish is that we should find another source of fuel so that we can tell the Opec countries and Russia to go jump. Everyone is too dependent on oil and the Saudis etc know it and play the rise and fall of prices game whenever the political situation heats up. Should a country speak about alternative fuel then Opec lowers its prices.
Absolutely conniving and the West falls for it. I find it hard to believe that we allow ourselves to be manipulated in this way.
As for Iran, I sincerely believe that there will be another revolution there, brought about by the middle classes who want to get on with their lives as citizens of the Twenty First Century. The reason that I say is is because nations decline from within rather than be conquered from without.
it's what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome-- they collapsed from internal problems.
The same fate awaits Iran.
it's just a matter of time but our marginalisation of them will only make them more stubborn and prolong their struggle which Ahmadinejad is fuelling.
Abu, these comments of yours would be welcome on my current NEW website
www.liligans.com
where the discussion would be more heated than on blogger.com. I have blogs on various topics and you would be an asset to the discussion.
Post a Comment
In my opinion, every nation only cares about itself and depending on an ally is unwise. (as you pointed out as well) You are writing as if I had said that Israel should not act whereas I wrote the exact opposite.
Please note that I did say that the last time I was proud of Israel's actions was at Entebbe.
Why? Because it didn't ask its "friends" what it should do. Also it did what it thought it should do, that is, save its citizens.
Now we have feeble negotiations with every man and his dog and sound like Shylock in his awful speech about "if you prick us do we not bleed?' when my reaction would have been "if you prick us, you'll regret it."
Having studied Machiavelli at a post-grad level (graduate level in your country) I am quite familiar with his work and am a great admirer.
What really bugs me about the West is that it is forever apologising for breathing. It doesn't want to do anything without consensus-which one will never get as long as Europe hates the U.S.
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe is causing havoc and so far nobody has done anything about it except to say that he's a naughty man.
Compare that with the condemnation of Israel as soon as it acts to protect itself e.g fence, retaliation for missiles sent by Gazans or Hezbollah.
As for the oil question, you must be aware that every time the U.S makes any move, the rest of the world cries out "it's only because of the oil". Now I don't believe that oil is "the factor" but it is a possible factor in the argument.
My wish is that we should find another source of fuel so that we can tell the Opec countries and Russia to go jump. Everyone is too dependent on oil and the Saudis etc know it and play the rise and fall of prices game whenever the political situation heats up. Should a country speak about alternative fuel then Opec lowers its prices.
Absolutely conniving and the West falls for it. I find it hard to believe that we allow ourselves to be manipulated in this way.
As for Iran, I sincerely believe that there will be another revolution there, brought about by the middle classes who want to get on with their lives as citizens of the Twenty First Century. The reason that I say is is because nations decline from within rather than be conquered from without.
it's what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome-- they collapsed from internal problems.
The same fate awaits Iran.
it's just a matter of time but our marginalisation of them will only make them more stubborn and prolong their struggle which Ahmadinejad is fuelling.
Abu, these comments of yours would be welcome on my current NEW website
www.liligans.com
where the discussion would be more heated than on blogger.com. I have blogs on various topics and you would be an asset to the discussion.
<< Home
