Friday, February 25, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (4)
The Saudis move, but move slowly
Indeed, as Glenn Reynolds has recently pointed out, the Saudis remain a potent source of terrorist support.
Neverheless, the Saudi regime does seem to be moving forward -- however slowly -- in altering their behavior in constructive ways. Again, it's maddeningly slow, but progress nevertheless.
This week saw further evidence of this. This past week the British and Saudis held a two-day conference entitled "Two Kingdoms: The Challenges Ahead," and some constructive things were said. Khaled Almaeena reports an example of this in Arab News :
Similarly, the Saudi government is making tentative noises about giving women the right to vote in future election. Beth Gardiner explains this in an Associated Press report:
One wonders if the strong performance of the conservatives in the first round of regional elections convinced the regime that giving women the political franchise might be in their own self-interest.
This post is not meant to be a jumping up and down saying, "Look, Saudi reforms!! Yippee!!" Clearly, this is going to take a while.
But it would be nice if one could say that the Saudis were only 85 years behind the times -- instead of 250.
Developing.... very, very, slowly.
posted by Dan on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM
The quotation from Reynolds made me think of this long, very serious Obsidian Wings post.
I think that thoughtful people like Prof. Drezner who regularly read Reynolds, or PowerLine, etc., should take a look at Hilzoy's post.posted by: Anderson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Is this the kind of progress the go-slow, neo-realist, anti-election segment of the left would embrace? Im still looking for a counter-proposal for democratizing the ME instead of simply carping at every turn of events no matter what it is.posted by: Mark Buehner on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Mr. Buehner! Long time no see!
Does *anyone* really have the slightest idea how to "democratize the Middle East"? Isn't there something misleading about the very transitive verb "democratize," as though we could just open up a can of democracy on their collective a--es?
(Speaking as a member of the think-before-you-go, reality-based, pro-election but anti-placebo segment of the Left. A "traitor," as our Blogger of the Year friends like to put it.)posted by: Anderson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
What is pro-election but anti-placebo?
That's can't-think-of-the-right-word for "elections are great as long as they're one step in a process and not a substitute for actual democracy." As the blogosphere was remarking, South Vietnam had elections too.
Best of luck to the fledgling Iraqi democrats; they'll need it.posted by: Anderson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
If I remember my history lessons correctly, this was a big talking point during the fight for women's suffrage in my country, and I'm sure others. One of the arguments for it on the conservative side was that women would boost their support, due to their natural social conservativism. Which just goes to show that ignorance and bigotry do go hand-in-hand.
“As the blogosphere was remarking, South Vietnam had elections too.”
The old media and the rest of the despicable liberal establishment are responsible for the collapse of Vietnam. Thankfully, they lack the power to destroy Iraq’s budding democracy. Walter Cronkite will likely never again get an opportunity to damage America and her allies.
Iraq is already a success story. This was fairly obvious long before our own election last November. And yes, people like myself have a right to take a bow. Things have worked out most the way we predicted. Want proof? Just read my comments on this very blog for the last year. What do I have going for me? I refuse to lick the rear ends of the “elite” Harvard University crowd. In many respects, it’s as simple as that. The unofficial motto of Harvard should be: “Slut for the Democratic Party and we will make sure that you are well rewarded.”posted by: David Thomson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Cohen's line at the top of Drezner's comment is cute but hardly original, it's the punch line of a very old joke. As for David Thompson's comments, I'd attribute the outcome in VietNam to the people who fought the war (the NVA and Viet Cong amng others), not the media. I'd do the same for whatever success there has been in Iraq, so I'm bemused as to why he's claiming credit for himself. Or does he actually believe that pinning himself to the comments section of this site has Zarqawi on the run?posted by: gene on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
As for David Thompson's comments, I'd attribute the outcome in VietNam to the people who fought the war (the NVA and Viet Cong amng others), not the media.
Baloney. Walter Crockite almost single-handledy destroyed America’s will. The Viet Cong was on the verge of utter defeat. The liberal media and its despicable distorted the truth. It is fair to say that the silly people at Harvard University were far more destructive than the Viet Cong.
I have been optimistic for a very long time because I knew that the deaths in Iraq were never a really big deal (in a big picture sense). The terrorists were never able to murder more than an average of some 300 people a week. Iraq has around 24 million citizens! It really is that simple. One only needs to use their 3rd grade math. Victory was close to being inevitable.posted by: David Thomson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
The following needs to be slightly revised:
"As for David Thompson's comments, I'd attribute the outcome in VietNam to the people who fought the war (the NVA and Viet Cong amng others), not the media."
posted by: David Thomson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
300 people a week is a lot. It's sufficient to cause enough fear, uncertainty, and mistrust to prevent establishment of a stable rule of law. If Iraq is to be a success, it will be because the organized insurgency is thoroughly defeated. I agree that some level of political violence may be tolerable (practically if not morally) within a stable polity, but not at the levels we've seen in Iraq. And the defeat of the insurgency won't be the work of hubristic bloggers, but of the people filling the "boots on the ground." When they bow, I'll clap.posted by: Andrew Steele on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
“300 people a week is a lot. It's sufficient to cause enough fear, uncertainty, and mistrust to prevent establishment of a stable rule of law. “
Oh for heaven’s sake, did you really say that with a straight face? A murder rate of 300 a week might slow things down, but the terrorists were obviously losing the war. We also have to remember that most of the violence occurs within the Sunni Triangle. The rest of Iraq has been relatively quiet for a long time. And this was the case long before our own elections in November! Some people blinded themselves to reality because of irrational hysteria due to the wish to destroy President Bush.
“If Iraq is to be a success, it will be because the organized insurgency is thoroughly defeated.”
Has crime been “thoroughly defeated” in America’s cities? How many murders occur weekly in Chicago? No, there’s a point where the terrorists can do little harm to the overall community. Did somebody ever promise you an utopian existence? If so, they sure lied to you.posted by: David Thomson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
The recent news from Egypt that multi-party elections might be allowed is a good sign. I've always felt that the US, which gives $2B in aid Egypt, could put considerably more pressure on it about its human rights record. This could be a hopeful sign as well, although Mubarak is one cunning fox ...
The presumption that democracy is our ally in the region is perilously flawed.
What majority sentiment wants is not necessarily going to be either peaceful or benign. To underscore the point it was not the westernized secular modernizers and political liberalizers that carried the Saudi election, it was the conservative and radical backed theocratic leaning candidates.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Is David Thomson, a leftist acting like the stereotypical fascistposted by: NeoDude on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Progress without a foreign military intervention is doomed to be slow; and that is a good thing: It avoids massive loss of life and enables the society to naturally move forward, which behooves national and regional stability.posted by: Fab on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"David Thomson" is actually Howard Dean, viciously parodying the wingnut mentality. Knock it off, Howard. Conservatives deserve better.
These fantasies about Vietnam are just incredible. The bottom line in Vietnam is that the majority of the population was at best indifferent to whether the North or the U.S. controlled the country. Had the South really wanted to resist the North, it would have. It didn't.
As I was saying earlier, there is no such thing as "democracy imposed from above." If the people of Iraq really want democracy, 300 deaths a week won't change their minds. But do they want democracy, or "one vote, one time"? Elections aren't democracy.posted by: Anderson on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
If the US had won in Viet Nam, it's likely that the government would have been no worse than South Korea or other authoritarian governments that we supported during the Cold War. Some of these governments have since moved into genuine democracy and the Vietnamese people would surely have been better off with that than with what they have now.
Having said that, it's ridiculous to say the media defeated the US. You are giving a hell of a lot of power to Walter Cronkite. It was a poltical war and North Vietnam had more will than we did, media or no media. Do you seriously think that a more "positive" media would have prevented dissatisfaction with an endless war, especially with draftees being sent off to get killed?
Moreover, it was none of our goddam business what kind of government Viet Nam had. The only reason we cared was because of the stupid domino theory. At least in Iraq, there is a plausible reason why we might care--in Viet Nam there was none and please don't tell me that the US exists to spread democracy and enlightenment throughout the world. Like any country, we exist to further our self-interest. Obviously, someone thought it was in our self-interest to fight in Viet Nam, but they were wrong. At last count, I don't see communist governments throughout SE Asia.posted by: MWS on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Thomson, it was your kind that have lost wars for America, until you and your kind take responsibility for poisoning American foriegn policy, we will lose more.posted by: NeoDude on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
One of the things about the 300-people-per-week is that it's not 300 random members of the general public. The fact that most of the killing is concentrated, and that it is targeted at certain kinds of people -- police, national guard, public officials -- matters.
But none of this is to say the U.S. should simply pack up and go home. I think there's a good chance for some sort of stability in Iraq, and we need to stick with it. But I stand by my statement that the organized insurgency needs to be defeated. That doesn't mean there will be no acts of violence in the country. I simply mean that the organized group trying to overthrow the government (and killing hundreds of people who want to be part of that government) needs to be eliminated for real stability to take hold. That's not a utopian sentiment.posted by: Andrew Steele on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Anderson, Oldman, always good to see you guys.
"The presumption that democracy is our ally in the region is perilously flawed."
Just as the assumption that an election was possible in the first place in Iraq or Afghanistan was perilously flawed. Lets face facts, we're through the looking glass here. The conventional wisdom has taken some major body blows in the last few years.
Of course we know for a fact that 'friendly despots' dont always remain peaceful, and certinaly are not benign. So neither solution is guaranteed? What is in life?
"To underscore the point it was not the westernized secular modernizers and political liberalizers that carried the Saudi election, it was the conservative and radical backed theocratic leaning candidates."
Indeed, the radical theocrats are viewed as the most dangerous to Saud rule. Is it any surprise that the most dangerous of the despots enemies won? For the oppressed to turn to the most radical of opposition is hardly unprecidented in this world. See Lenin, V.I.
The point is we need to not confuse success with creating a pro-american ally. Iraq becoming another Turky would be an overwhelming success, in fact perhaps moreso than an active ally as our enemies could not point to such a nation and claim it was a sham democracy and american puppet. All this talk of theocracy ect is speculative and premature. I defy anyone to draw out a realistic scenario more promising than what we find today (assuming the insurgency is a constant). The Shiia have control which was inevitable, but everything they have said is consiliatory and pro-democracy. The Kurds, sunni, and secular shiia have the constitutional authority to block any Shiia transgretions. Checks and balances. If the Shiia intend to keep the nation whole they must do what they are doing and play ball. That is the best outcome can could hope for, it is in the Shiias self interest to be moderate.
The most dangerous assumption of all is that an election took place at all in Afghanistan or Iraq. To clarify, for elections to succeed it is not merely sufficient for process participation to occur but for the electoral results in government outcome to reflect the vox populi in a representative manner. Saddam afterall held "elections" as well as did Arafat.
To put it all in perspective the socialist revolution in Russia was not a democratic revolution. Democracy is indeed the worst system of governance except all others. However that is not in doubt, what is in doubt is whether we are actually seeing democracy at all.
Hence my statement meant quite ironically is that 'democracy' is not necessarily our ally in the region.
This is not a reading where democracy itself is justaposed against despots as you so read it. It is meant to imply that it is not democracy at all that is at work in the region and so allying with us out of convenience is something merely posing as democracy.
Remember Beuhner that popular movements and revolts - whether from the Bolschevik revolution, the Maoist revolution, the French Revolution, the Cromwell revolution, Napoleon's revolution - often pose as carrying out the will of the people when they are in no regard doing anything of the sort.
Of course, as usual I was too subtle. Or perhaps subtlety is a lost art these days.
What we are seeing is a popular based movement. If it is toward democracy however I would be very much surprised. There is also a difference in what you mistake between moderation and expediency. Perhaps a rereading of Thucydidyes will remind you of such Mark.
I have no real objection to democracy or moderation at all, only to the presumption that this is what is taking place.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"It is meant to imply that it is not democracy at all that is at work in the region and so allying with us out of convenience is something merely posing as democracy."
I've heard the moonbats make the same argument about American democracy, and by your logic they have a point. Its all a matter of degree, after all. You are right about one thing, democracy is a process not an event. My point is that realistically what we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan is about the best we could have hoped for at this point in their evolution, and worlds better than any of the critics expected. And again I would warn the prognosticators that proceeding on the same assumptions that proved so wrong up to now to predict how things will go from here is a rather ludicrous position to be in.
"What we are seeing is a popular based movement. If it is toward democracy however I would be very much surprised."
Just as the American Revolution was a popular based movement. And just as then the Iraqis have been fortunate enough to develop a legal framework wherein it is virtually impossible for the majority to tyranize without sparking a complete breakdown in the process and hence delegitimize itself.
"There is also a difference in what you mistake between moderation and expediency. "
True, but in this case they seem to intersect. Again I put it to you, what would you prefer to see?posted by: Mark Buehner on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
You seem to pride yourself as person of reason and intelligence Mr. Buehner. Wrap your head around this then:
It is not the anti-American Sunni insurgents that are primarily doing this - though they are no angels. It is the people who have won the "elections" and are now conducting a private war of terror against their own people, to keep them in line. When we read in the papers of Seinn Feinn being implicated in criminal IRA criminal activities, we are merely cynical. When we hear of Chavez disappearing political opponents, again no angels themselves, we are prone to condemn him as a demagogue posing as a democratically elected leader.
So why is it that we use these countless subterfuges - insurgents, terrorists, etc. - to cover up a basic truth? The Baathists and Sunnis under Saddam were the secularists and most socially liberal regarding women's rights. It is not women's right to dress in a western fashion they are against - indeed cynically as David Thompson reminds us with his oft repeated mantra of 'rape bait' they enjoyed that sort of thing.
No the Sunni's and Baathists are not the ones doing this. Oh they might execute a pro-American talker here, kill a translator working with Americans, or kidnap a prominent person there for $$$ cash but to oppress "women's rights" by making public "statements" about women who just dress more freely? please.
Spare me the naivete. No it is the people we have allied ourselves with, and as long as we blame the Sunnis for this kind of atrocity then we will be forced to scratch our heads about why we cannot put a stop to it.
Because we are looking in the wrong place. In addition it is not just Sunni Baathists or women who dare to not dress traditionally that are on the hit list - it is intellectuals, scientists, modernizers, and anyone who dares run against them politically - all the people who somehow survived Saddam's horrific regime that are being snuffed out at a steady and non trivial rate now.
The people that were 'elected' are quietly killing democracy in the backalley, by killing the very people who emobdy modern liberalized social values while all the while you repeat the tired old argument of democracy vs. despots.
Yes! By all means let us have democracy! If would like to see some myself, if I could only find any in that terrible benighted place.
The only thing that has been done is to exchange a beligerrant secular tyranny with a cynically hypocritical tyranny that puts on a good face about winning elections ensured by demagogery and knives in back alleys.
Nor in the end will such an exchange benefit us one wit, for when it is no longer expedient or whenever they can get away with it they shall betray us in a trice.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
As Voltaire did I mock the "best of all worlds" argument as the defense of the complacent and incompetent. If we are to hold up places like the Ukraine as models of democratic revolution then we cannot simultaneously hold different standards elsewhere where it is convenient to pass over our failures.
The simple fact is that the Administration did not set out to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. They posed as doing so because it was convenient, but they wanted a client state. Saddam too ran a client state for us. Therefore the entireity of the project has been about producing a complacent rather than unreliable client state, and not about democracy.
What we have set out to do, has created the outcome we are seeing. If we were genuinely interested in creating democracy, we would have proceded far differently. This is made vastly evident in places like the Ukraine, where it shows that it is not mere culture that is different but our entire procedure and process was different.
You ask me what I would have actually liked to see instead? A genuine democracy! We could have created one. Indeed Macarthur did it, our administration of Germany produced one, and our actions since in places like Georgia and the Ukraine show that we can indeed do so if we are so minded.
However we were never minded to do so in the first place. A genuine democracy would not have been biddable, any more than Europe has been biddable. Therefore we produced a charade.
You ask so innocently what I would like to see instead, as if this debacle is somehow the "best" we can do. Even at this late point, if we were so minded we could produce a genuine democracy there.
However we never intended to.
As for my harsh criticism of you, remember it is you who first started verbally associating me with "moonbats".
What that just shows is that you will stoop to any depths to smear by association an argument you find it intellectually dishonest but not expedient to cede.
I cannot change the policy of the US government single-handed Mark. But I thought at least to hold out a hand in truth to one person - you! Instead you stoop to an unseemly off hand smear against me, one carelessly and cheaply done. Consider what is really at stake in this discussion -not the fate of Iraq for that is out of our hands -but your integrity and character!
If you cannot even see how low and despicable you have lowered yourself to in order to defend the indefensible here, I am sad to say that my hope of urging you to divorce yourself from destroying your integrity to defend what in the end is not to your benefit has failed.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
"It is not the anti-American Sunni insurgents that are primarily doing this - though they are no angels. It is the people who have won the "elections" and are now conducting a private war of terror against their own people, to keep them in line"
Could we for one second try to develop a sense of scope here? The stories you sight are the equivalent of taking the tire slashing stories in Wisconsin and claiming America is going the way of Russia. Lets get a grip. Iraq is far from perfect, we all know that. Yes there is sectarian violence, but is it _anywhere near_ the scale predicted? NO. Is there fundamentalists zealotry occuring? of course. Is it anywhere near the level predicted, has the Taliban grabbed control of Basra? NO. Lets not make the perfect the enemy of the good, especially before a government is, you know, even formed.
"Spare me the naivete. No it is the people we have allied ourselves with, and as long as we blame the Sunnis for this kind of atrocity then we will be forced to scratch our heads about why we cannot put a stop to it"
Spare me the condescension. And please stop acting like the isolated incidents you named are any comparison to the car bombs killing hundreds trying to join the police force, or the jihadis beheading 'collaberators'. Its an insult to Iraqis and beneath you. To think that isolated incidents that you sight are anything near the intimidating factor that the Sunni dissidents and jihadis are reeking is absurd and simply not born out by a shred of evidence. Ask the 4 million Iraqi women that voted how intimidated they are, and please dont try to scare me with the typical dredge Newsweek puts out weekly explaining what a disaster Iraq is this week.
"Yes! By all means let us have democracy! If would like to see some myself, if I could only find any in that terrible benighted place."
Either you are intentionally being obstinant or you dont have a clue what you are talking about vis-a-vis the federalism already guaranteed in the interim constitution. You do realize any 3 provinces vetoing the new constitution will kill it right? Do you think the Kurds or Sunnis will allow this alleged Islamacist takeover? Will the backalley knives intimidate the Kurds who have been fighting (and beating) a real professional tyrant for 20 years? Please.
"The simple fact is that the Administration did not set out to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. They posed as doing so because it was convenient, but they wanted a client state"
Oldman, you are smart. I respect you. So im asking to please step back from the ledge and think about what you just said. First off, the Shiia are a bunch of anti-American religious zealots about to take control of Iraq. Second that the election was a scam because the US was trying to set up a puppet. WHICH IS IT?
"A genuine democracy! We could have created"
Great. How? Quit telling us how wrong we are and start describing what we should be doing. Put an American cop on every street corner in Iraq to stop the intimidation? Would that really have helped?
"As for my harsh criticism of you, remember it is you who first started verbally associating me with "moonbats"....
"If you cannot even see how low and despicable you have lowered yourself to in order to defend the indefensible here, I am sad to say that my hope of urging you to divorce yourself from destroying your integrity to defend what in the end is not to your benefit has failed."
If you consider giving 25 million people a hand to freedom indefensible, perhaps we dont have anything further to discuss. I would simply warn you that a year from now (or ten) the odds are very good that you will look back, not find the Iraq horrors you see lurking in every shadow, and discover you were wrong and just perhaps owe those of us who committed the aggregious sin of seeing things differntly than you an apology. I for one wont need it, i know you are intelligent enough and honest enough to see the evidence with your own eyes, and hopefully will be beyond the need to find that petty flaws overwhelm the tremendous good.posted by: Mark Buehner on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
False dichotomy Mark.
First the US can be attempting -as it clearly attempted to do so first by enshrining Allawi- to produce a client state. That populist dissent was too strong in the Shias to accomplish this only changed who the US wanted to strike a deal with.
Second the Shias are not unsubtle. They need not act like cartoon cariactures. They are completely capable of striking such a short term deal with the United States until they firmly control the reins of power, using the United States to suppress their old enemies the Sunnis and pressure the Kurds not to secede. Then when the time is right, they will turn on us without a moment's hesitation.
If you think that the two ideas - that the Shias are only using us and that we are trying to force a client state down the Iraqis throats - are mutually exclusive then you haven't spent much time in the real world. People try that kind of double scam crap all the time.
Really Mark, you've gone downhill.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
BTW, for the record the United States is a (genuine)democracy. It got the President that it decided to have. It does have flaws and I do not consider it either financially or politically healthy, but it is a genuine democracy. Democracies in troubled periods or who elect incompetent leaders are nothing new to the world. Bush is not even the first US President to come into office after an electoral college upset or electoral imperfections. That is nothing new.
What was releashed by our actions was a ethnic nationalist and tribal current. If they have populist elections that install tribal leaders whose success was essentially foreordained by their culture then that is not democracy Mark.
I am not denying these people anything. However neither can we in America give them democracy as if it was an off the shelf item or a recipe in a cookbook!
And BTW you were still feeling for a freaking cheap shot on the moonbat electoral issue in there. As if somehow the United States of America with all its history and struggle of democratic evolution were somehow comparable to Iraq!!!
Bah!!! talk about expedient moral equivalency!!! The fact that we have a democracy however imperfect is no defense that Iraqis have one at all!!! As if democracy could be communicated by association like a communicable disease.
I take you as insincere Mark because for all your fine words you even in your svelt pseudo-apology were still searching for a hit "I see no retraction". You say I am intelligent. Well believe this, I am intelligent enough to know when someone is being insincere even if they pretty it up some.
That disgusts me. Yes, I am intelligent enough to believe the evidence of my eyes over the evidence of my ideology as you admit. That is why I am sorry for you - not because you are mistaken or right concerning this idea - but because disumulation and verbal indecency has become so second nature to you that you cannot part from it even when you "praise" someone.
Such degradation of your character is the only reward you will have from resorting to such tactics.posted by: oldman on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Ive gone downhill. You're the one defining a puppet regime as that which, by your own definition, is democratically elected in spite of the faction we supposedly hand picked and yet chooses to work with us. I guess that makes half the nations of the world and all of Europe AMerican puppets. To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
"If they have populist elections that install tribal leaders whose success was essentially foreordained by their culture then that is not democracy Mark"
And yet you claim we had hand picked the Allawi government for ascendence. You are completely incoherent. Democracy is confusing your argument. You want so bad for this to be something its not and its making your arguments impossible to follow.
"As if somehow the United States of America with all its history and struggle of democratic evolution were somehow comparable to Iraq!!!"
You may remeber a certain country that started on its democratic road allowing only landed white males the vote. If oldman had been around in the 1780s i would despair for the future of America. If the only time you promote democracy is when it can be overlaid in pristine form to your specifications, well im sorry but you de facto oppose democracy because it has _never_ worked like that.
"Well believe this, I am intelligent enough to know when someone is being insincere even if they pretty it up some. "
You've apparently also grown arrogant enough to refuse even contemplating criticism and desperate enough to see your predicitions fufilled to embrace some completely inane reality that even the democrats havent discovered. The strange 'Anti-American puppet state' that must be Karl Rove's ultimate triumph.
Im sorry its come to this oldman. Its fairly clear to me that you have abandoned objective reality for some world of your own where your superior intellect has trumped the rest of the worlds analysis. Constitutional hurdles and a world wide history of deeply flawed fledgling democracies make _zero_ impact on you, and indeed you choose not to even address the issues but rather attack the messenger. So be it. I fear for yor sanity if you continue spinning disaster as Iraq slowly evolves. It might help to think over the plight of the Iraqis themselves, and decide if you would really condemn them to perpetual tyranny if a perfect democracy cannot (as it cannot) be invoked upon them instantly.
posted by: Mark Buehner on 02.25.05 at 11:28 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: