a rather abrupt change of subject
I came across this article earlier this evening and have been pondering it. And I need to do more thinking because I honestly don't know where to stand on the issue. It somehow seems out of line to say that the faction of people who believe that President Bush was wrong to become involved in Iraq actually want the United States to lose this war. The author also seems to find this astounding, yet he seems to believe it. I don't think it's really true. But I do think liberals do an awful lot of screaming about something that can't be changed. No matter how much they might wish it, we can't go back in time. We're there, and we're stuck.
It doesn't do a lot of good to argue about whether Iraq would have been better off had we not interfered. Yes, Saddam's regime was horrible. His government did bad things to people. His removal was certainly not a bad thing. But is the alternative much better? We're seeing nothing but chaos at the moment. They're trying to construct a new government. But chances are good it won't be much better than the one they had.
The problems the Iraqis are trying to iron out now date back to earlier than I've researched, which is back to 1920 when the British created the state of Iraq. Ironically, the word Iraq in Arabic means "well-founded country." But an American missionary to the region after the first world war aptly observed that "you are flying in the face of four millenia of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a political entity!" Iraq in it's present form has no history of stable government, merely a history of either anarchy or tyranny.
The situation we are facing in Iraq right now is remarkably similar to the situation faced by Britain in the 1920's. In the summer of that year, a number of Iraqi factions rose in a revolt that raged for nearly a year. These factions had no visible political agenda. The public reaction in Britain at the time was similar to much of public reaction in the U.S. today. The Times London asked on 7 August 1920, "how much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavour to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for and do not want?" Such a question reflects a chilling parallel to the chaos erupting in Iraq today.*
This has happened before. And little good came of it. So can we do it right this time? And how? I don't think humanitarian aid will work the wonders that Mr. Hitchins seems to think it will. This is a question of government. Tyranny or anarchy? Or democracy? Democracy is what the Bush administration wants. But is democracy even possible in a country with such a divided people? That's a question I don't know how to answer.
*This information came from a spectacularly informative and well-written history of the post-WWI period called A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin. I highly recommend.
It doesn't do a lot of good to argue about whether Iraq would have been better off had we not interfered. Yes, Saddam's regime was horrible. His government did bad things to people. His removal was certainly not a bad thing. But is the alternative much better? We're seeing nothing but chaos at the moment. They're trying to construct a new government. But chances are good it won't be much better than the one they had.
The problems the Iraqis are trying to iron out now date back to earlier than I've researched, which is back to 1920 when the British created the state of Iraq. Ironically, the word Iraq in Arabic means "well-founded country." But an American missionary to the region after the first world war aptly observed that "you are flying in the face of four millenia of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a political entity!" Iraq in it's present form has no history of stable government, merely a history of either anarchy or tyranny.
The situation we are facing in Iraq right now is remarkably similar to the situation faced by Britain in the 1920's. In the summer of that year, a number of Iraqi factions rose in a revolt that raged for nearly a year. These factions had no visible political agenda. The public reaction in Britain at the time was similar to much of public reaction in the U.S. today. The Times London asked on 7 August 1920, "how much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavour to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for and do not want?" Such a question reflects a chilling parallel to the chaos erupting in Iraq today.*
This has happened before. And little good came of it. So can we do it right this time? And how? I don't think humanitarian aid will work the wonders that Mr. Hitchins seems to think it will. This is a question of government. Tyranny or anarchy? Or democracy? Democracy is what the Bush administration wants. But is democracy even possible in a country with such a divided people? That's a question I don't know how to answer.
*This information came from a spectacularly informative and well-written history of the post-WWI period called A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin. I highly recommend.
posted by stoerzie at
2:31 AM
