Friday, May 25, 2007

"We shoudn't have occupied Iraq"

Says who? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Some other democrat? No, it's former US ambassador to the UN, Bush apointee John Bolton.

Of course, Bolton's reasons for expressing such an opinion are redically different then the "Bush is evil" rantings from the liberal left. He gives a reasonable, political point if view, but his analysis, while correct as a draft, is a bit superficial.

For instance, Bolton does not analyze the key premise for such a long term occupation of Iraq nad the main goal of the Iraq war architects, which is establishing democracy. He does come close, but falls short of saying that this goal was flawed in it's essence. It's proponents were utterly ignorant about almost everything. They knew nothing about the history of Iraq, the nature of islam which was for 1400 years a dominant wordlview, the sunni-shia split and it's consequences, the tribalistic culture of Iraq.

What they lacked in knowledge, however, they made up perfectly with hubris and fascination with brute force. Democracy, you see, is the answer for everything, they say. Once they vote, they will see how great it is to pick your own representatives. After all don't the "ordinary moms and dads in the middle East" want the same for their children as those in the US? And so what if they don't? So what if they elect people who want to eradicate the other group and, while they are at it, also take down an American soldier here and there? We will respond, we will stay as long as it takes, do whatever it takes, until we win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis. Yes, this is the mindset of those that constructed the whole Iraq war idea. It is not therefore at all unusual that they first say that it is racist to think that muslims are not ready for democracy and then about a minute later say that they will crush and subdue them with any means necessary and that "Arabs only respect force".

Not one of the proponents of the Iraq democratization plan is admitting their mistake. Then again, they don't have much choice, do they? They invested their whole reputations pursuing this idea which, when it comes to Iraq has become the idea. A whole worldview is now at stake not to mention a significant number of careers. Which is why further lives and resources must go to the fantasy of Iraqi democracy, lives and resources that should be used to fight against an all to real threat of global jihad. And that's the worst part, because the unpopularity and by now evident sheer folly of the war in Iraq has many a common man starting to buy the talking points of islamic apologists and their liberal globalist allies of how the global jihad does not exist and that it is all an invention of the "evil Bush administration". Such a development endangeres us all, not just those presently living under constant threat of jihadist violence.

Bolton was a senior member of the Bush administration and his words carry much more weight then those of any pundit or analyst. It will be interesting to see what kind of reaction his words provoke. It would be nice if this would start a real debate about Iraq and global jihad outside the artificially imposed "Stay the course" - "Bush is evil" dichotomy.

2 comments:

Michael said...

Bolton is right, though. The fundamental problem with the Iraq War was not overthrowing Saddam, but staying on as an occupying power afterward.

It would have been better (as far as "War on Terror" strategy goes) for the US forces to have left immediately after the capture of Saddam (taking him with them, too), and to have let the country fall into a multi-sided civil war while quietly feeding everyone enough small arms to keep the bloodbath going indefinitely.

Just my 2 cents...

erdega79@gmail.com said...

"they" attacked Saddam because of Iraq , not iraq because of Saddam so Saddam alone is not worth anything and certainly no one outside of Iraq could hold him for nothing but a prisoner or prize object