![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The Daily Token Political Blog
I read an article last night on MSNBC about Iraq, and a little concerned I'm not seeing this covered by the other news agencies. I should've expected that, honestly.
It's basically bringing up the current state of things in Iraq - - - which - and stop me if this sounds familiar - has gone progressively downhill.
See, we've been hearing about the recent military success of "the surge" - which added several thousand boots "on the ground" and, together with a convenient rebellion of some of the local tribes (who we armed and trained), managed to somehow bring violence down over the past few months.
Well, there are some problems in Iraq. See, these tribes are now armed and trained. And they have pushed back some of their enemies - - - which now leaves them with, really, only one major opposition: us.
Currently, our agreements in Iraq promised that our soldiers would leave their country by Dec 31st of this year. Our negotiations to retain them within their borders is having problems. Why? Well, the tribal leaders dont' want us staying there. And they're angry with their elected officials for trying to negotiate with us over how much longer we can stay there. So now they are beginning to withdraw support for their elected leaders, who - unarmed and without tribes of equally armed followers - are losing power like New Jersey in a heat wave.
What happened? What went wrong?
Well, we were desperate for a "win" - - any win at all - - and we sacrificed a long term potentially positive outcome for a short term positive spin. Oooh, we cut violence by a minor percentage, just in time for it to be a sound byte in the middle of an presidential campaign. But now, our efforts are screwed. The local Iraqi government has no power, and their own defensive forces - ours, really - are now in the way of their shift of power. We're artificially maintaining an illusion of peace when the country is literally struggling to determine its own fate.
We're trying to slap a bandaid on it, calling it "Democracy" and scratching our heads while they don't just take to it like a duck to water.
Democracy is a good thing - generally - but one of the founding principles of it is that it needs to be fought for by its people. It's like that old saying about giving a kid a bicycle - he won't appreciate the value of it and will likely just rip it apart. But if he earns the money and BUYS a bicycle, he's more likely to take care of it.
I don't think Iraq is really "ready" for democracy. Why? Because they aren't doing it on their own. We're "helping" them. I suppose a similar argument could've been made for the United States of America, 200+ years ago, because we had help from Spain in our battle for independence against Britain.
But I don't think we're France in that metaphor.
I think we're England.
It's basically bringing up the current state of things in Iraq - - - which - and stop me if this sounds familiar - has gone progressively downhill.
See, we've been hearing about the recent military success of "the surge" - which added several thousand boots "on the ground" and, together with a convenient rebellion of some of the local tribes (who we armed and trained), managed to somehow bring violence down over the past few months.
Well, there are some problems in Iraq. See, these tribes are now armed and trained. And they have pushed back some of their enemies - - - which now leaves them with, really, only one major opposition: us.
Currently, our agreements in Iraq promised that our soldiers would leave their country by Dec 31st of this year. Our negotiations to retain them within their borders is having problems. Why? Well, the tribal leaders dont' want us staying there. And they're angry with their elected officials for trying to negotiate with us over how much longer we can stay there. So now they are beginning to withdraw support for their elected leaders, who - unarmed and without tribes of equally armed followers - are losing power like New Jersey in a heat wave.
What happened? What went wrong?
Well, we were desperate for a "win" - - any win at all - - and we sacrificed a long term potentially positive outcome for a short term positive spin. Oooh, we cut violence by a minor percentage, just in time for it to be a sound byte in the middle of an presidential campaign. But now, our efforts are screwed. The local Iraqi government has no power, and their own defensive forces - ours, really - are now in the way of their shift of power. We're artificially maintaining an illusion of peace when the country is literally struggling to determine its own fate.
We're trying to slap a bandaid on it, calling it "Democracy" and scratching our heads while they don't just take to it like a duck to water.
Democracy is a good thing - generally - but one of the founding principles of it is that it needs to be fought for by its people. It's like that old saying about giving a kid a bicycle - he won't appreciate the value of it and will likely just rip it apart. But if he earns the money and BUYS a bicycle, he's more likely to take care of it.
I don't think Iraq is really "ready" for democracy. Why? Because they aren't doing it on their own. We're "helping" them. I suppose a similar argument could've been made for the United States of America, 200+ years ago, because we had help from Spain in our battle for independence against Britain.
But I don't think we're France in that metaphor.
I think we're England.