So did the Iraquis deserve someone like Saddam Hussein?

The amount of people who are causing problems is relatively small. Al-Sadr is not popular in the Shiite community but has a following of a few thousand. After being beaten down for decades by Hussein, I suspect a lot of people are afraid and hiding in their homes. The silent majority do not "deserve" to live under a brutal dictatorship.

 

People in Iraq probley expected great things to happen overnight once Saddam was gone. They haven't realized that it takes time and effort to clean up and replace the brutality and corruption of the previous regime.

This just doesn't apply to Iraq alone.

 

Those stupid, ungrateful sons of bitches. Don't they appreciate all we've done for them?

 

some kuwaities think that hey do deserve an ************** like him!!

 

Anyone else shocked with this assessment? Didn't think so.

 

Very provocative question. I've gotta say no, though, they didn't deserve someone like Saddam.

You're right, and you're wrong. You're right in that not very many people are shooting at us. But you're wrong in that those who are shooting at us never seem to have trouble escaping, blending into the population, etc.

 

This begs the question. If the number of people causing problems is small, and the number of people who want what we are trying to establish is large, then where the f are they?

Seriously. Freedom ain't cheep, and at some level they have to be responsible in a way that is greater than being a "silent majority".

Where are the f'in statesmen? Where are the leaders whose statues will adorn the square on independence day? Chalabi????

It's no longer acceptable that Iraqis sit back and let us do the dirty work waiting for their shining new democracy to be handed to them as if they where Paris Hilton or Jenna Bush. (admitted cheap shot )

If someone or some group doesn't step up to the plate soon, then the final (and most bogus) justification for Bushes war will come toppling down. They may be relieved that Saddam is gone, but did they and do they want a western style democracy? It doesn't seem so.

If Sadr's followers are so damn small -- as we keep hearing -- then it is time, and it is the duty of every Iraqi to take to the streets and demand that the people who are getting in the way of their freedom, democracy and civil order be eliminated.

Yesterday, by chance I came across the Irish Patriot Robert Emmet's speech before the court the night before his execution. It was brilliant. The kind of stuff that stirs men and womens souls. I haven't seen a single figure who approaches anything like a patriot for the Iraqi cause yet.

Is that bad media coverage, or is there simply no one passionate and eloquent enough to lead? It's been a year for God's sake. This governing council we have created appears to have done nothing to inspire a nation.

 

A quick follow up on my rant and directed at this question. On some level, a nation of millions does deserve what they get when they don't stand up for themselves, and when they don't exercise those God given rights we assume are self evident.

Yea, people have to die to get rid of bad guys, but people have been doing it throughout history.

In a related note, we have gotten what we deserve with the current administration -- and I am sure that repubs would admit the same thing through the Clinton years -- because we are lazy at the ballot box and because we do not demand enough from our govenrment.

 

huzzah to chris m.

 

Bob Herbert, today...

"One of the things soldiers on the ground in Vietnam learned is that while there were many South Vietnamese who were genuinely fearful of the Communist North and were anxious to embrace the values that the U.S. stood for, it was difficult to get them to fight for their freedom with the ferocity that the Americans expected. Among other things, we underestimated the strength of the ethnic and cultural bonds that the Vietnamese felt with one another, whatever their political inclinations.

When the Americans — foreigners — with their superior technology and firepower went to work tearing up the landscape and mowing down the enemy (not to mention the so-called collateral damage of innocent South Vietnamese civilians), any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the country at large was lost."

Iraq ain't Vietnam, but it's something to reflect on.

 

I think a huge problem that hasn't been addressed in this discussion is that we've bungled our public relations campaign in Iraq badly. Effectively, anyone who stands up for Democracy in Iraq right now is standing up for the US. And say what you will about how much we've helped the Iraqi people, no one really likes an occupier. Yes, I know, Japan will be thrown back in my face, but Japan was different, because the whole country was so stunned by its own atrocities (as was Germany). Here, most Iraqis don't think they were to blame in the first place, and here they are being occupied by a foreign power, who represents many of the things their clerics have been preaching against.
How is a popular voice supposed to endorse this without coming accross as a collaborator? Perhaps Sistani could, but then he'd be uniting church and state, something we keep saying we don't want. The only real legitimate voices of freedom most Iraqis percieve are those who're outside of the control of the US, and most of them are railing against the US. This region has a bad history with colonialism - the British ruled Iraq by proxy for half of the last century. Why SHOULD Iraqis trust someone we've dropped on them from a failed IBank?

Its not as simple as "why aren't they stepping up to the plate". Do I think they should? Yes, I really wish I saw more of that. But again, how do you convince people that you're for US goals but aren't a collaborator? By insisting to Iraqis that we want them to have only the Democracy we let them, we've cut off popular support of any such proponents at the knees. Its going to be very, very hard to get legitimate Iraqi voices now.

 

You make some excellent points, and we HAVE bungled this in a way that will make it more difficult for someone to lead without looking like our puppet, but I am comfortable in saying "that's not my problem."

In my mind's eye, I see a secular, charismatic leader stepping up and saying "the occupation needs to end. Iraq will NOT be Americas puppet. Regardless, democracy and freedom are what we deserve."

That person would also have the cajones and smarts to work WITH Sistani to provide freedom and security for the Shiites to thrive while convincing him of the need for a secular government to insure everyone's rights and freedoms.

Robert Emmet. Lech Walesa. Boris Yeltsin. Thomas Jefferson. Vaclev Havel.

How about images. The Velvet Revolution marching across the Charles Bridge. Yeltsin standing on the tank. Washington crossing the Delaware. Walesa's orations at the docks in Gdansk. and even unsuccessful attempts like Tiannamen Square.

What value will a socially engineered US puppet democracy have without some dramatic and patriotic Iraq led events. In a way, that is exactly the vein that Sadr is currently tapping into -- misdirected as it is.

 

Your points are valid as well, but I think there's more of a problem in Iraq for several reasons. One, is that the names you mentioned above were RESISTING occupations, not agreeing with them. Its an almost impossible line to toe - how do you back the occupier while disassociating yourself from him?
Also, I'm just not sure we can impose democratic values on Iraq from the top down. Iraq is still, in many respects, a tribalized culture. Many people in Tikrit loved Saddam, because he gave back to his town. This is not a common phenomenon in European dictatorships, for example. Hitler's minions weren't from the same place he was; almost none of the dictators had "regional strongholds". (Franco, maybe?) This makes it far more difficult to advocate Democracy, because the first thought is often is "now that I'm in power, lets ensure my own get enough". This is far from pork-barrel politics too, to forestall that silly analogy.

So when a Shiite stands up and argues for Democracy, will the Sunnis and the Kurds listen? I'm not so sure. Plus, he'd have to watch out for his own people killing him for supporting the US. Honestly, I see no real way out of this mess. For a country so badly divided, how can you expect them to come and work together under the aegis of an occupier who's not all that well liked?

I would love to see a Gandhi or a Jefferson or a Havel appear in Iraq. I just don't think its reasonable to expect one given the political and cultural climate. Hopefully Sistani can be a force for good, but that will inexorably take us to a government with at least some elements of religion. I think that may well be the best scenario that can come of this, unless you think an Iraq split 3 ways is a better idea, despite the geopolitical upheaval it would cause in the region (a separate Kurdish state, for example).

Please note, this does NOT mean I think Iraqis are somehow worse and incapable of democracy.

 

Things reach equilibrium in their own way, therefore to Iraqis Saddam is optimum. And the invasion is a big mistake.

 

daydreaming?

 

Are you retarded? If you're going to quote me, at least finish the paragraph. This is what I wrote:

I would love to see a Gandhi or a Jefferson or a Havel appear in Iraq. I just don't think its reasonable to expect one given the political and cultural climate.

 

I agree. That is the folly of this whole plan from the beginning. Democracy needs to percolate up from the ground, not be imposed by a foreign occupier.

Having said that, the basis for a new Iraq HAS to come from Iraq. In another thread, I said that all of this has to start at the local level. it can then branch out. If the first true democracy includes Baghdad and not much else, then so be it.

For the past ten years, Saddam exerted little control over the North, and less than he would have liked over the south.

So one ballsy person (or a small group of ballsy leaders) needs to be a leader and start the process -- probably apart from the US -- being defiant enough to distance him or herself, but accomodating enough to allow it to happen. It does seem impossible, but there is really no other way.

As much as I like Karzai, his "government" is little more than a City Council at this point with little to suggest that a true nation is anywhere near a reality. The difference is, our war in Afghanistan was necessary.

I think there would have eventually been a change of government in Iraq. hopefully a democratic revolution, but it could have been a theocratic revolution. But that wasn't really our call.

 

Hey, you made a statement in a COMPLETE sentence. So don't blame me.

You could have said "...appear in Iraq, but I just don't ..." I'm sorry.

 

Un-freaking believable. My thought is complete because I finished a sentence? This is what PARAGRAPHS are for.

 

Let's go back to the topic.

Invasion of Iraq is ultimately another example of arrogance. Exporting freedom itself is an insulting concept to most of the world. It essentially tells people my way of living is better than yours. The world doesn't work that way.