I suppose it's my turn to offer yet another blogger's perspective about dear old Saddam Hussein. First, let's get one thing straight: Saddam is no martyr and he never will be seen as such. Mao and Stalin weren't revered in this light and he sure won't get his due on this front. The truth is that many Arabs viewed him with suspicion and distrust. He was a secular and destabilizing figure in the region.
Hussein is gone. With him goes bad karma. One can only hope Charon is taking him to the River Styx where the former dictator will meet with Satan.
With so much to be done in Iraq, we could all be excused for thinking it's a colossal waste of time. It's that overwhelming. However, when the tough gets going....you know the rest.
Is this the time to pull out troops and impeach a President during such a precarious period? It seems to me that advocating this position only considers the short-term aspect of what is now a long-term project. I think most reasonable people would conclude that Bush and his administration did not a) convey to the public effectively their plan and b) plan the aftermath of the invasion properly. We could add a "c" here for the moral relativists among us: that before our eyes he morphed into a modern day Hitler. Not going ther. Ain't gonna touch that one. Not worth it. Despite this, it does not mean the over-arching idea was wrong. If anything, now is the time for true enlightened ideas to shine through. Speaking of which, ever notice how military leaders stationed in Iraq sound infinitely insightful and intelligent? Maybe it's all that classical training but I tell you what, I thoroughly enjoy listening to them speak about Iraq.
Iraq is a great experiment in a region that has no experience with the concept of democracy. It's a region that never really had to insert notions of cooperation and compromise in its geopolitical engagements. Iraq was literally stripped of a bloody dictatorial regime and replaced by fragile democratic institutions hastily pasted together. It should not surprise anyone that violence has been used as a diplomatic tool. Personally, I don't think the insurgents or Baathist loyalists or terrorists or whatever delinquent remnant of the pervious dictatorship is hanging on has much of a long-term future.
Article comments
1 - Franco
Thank you neighbor, its always nice to see support from you. I could not agree with you more. This is the time and this is the place. The glass is half full. I just hope the new congress can see it all too. God I hope so.
2 - SHARK
This essay is a waste of your time and ours. You said basically Nothing, but you did it very articulately.
Also -- in your defense -- there really isn't much to say about Iraq.
Shark's Take:
1) We lost.
2) We need to leave.
3) And Americans are sick of hearing about the fucking place. Stand back and watch...
3 - alessandro nicolo
Well Shark, #2 says 'we need to leave.' I argue you need to stay. Therefore, I said something.
4 - alessandro nicolo
Furthermore and on second thought, there remains plenty to be said of it. We haven't been saying the right things. To conclude it neatly as you did is, well, unfortunate in my opinion. And as fr your #3, that may be so, but my point is that this is the time to take a step back and make it work. Let me ask you. Do you care what happens to Iraq? That's what hurts the American political image - the going in and coming out before the work is done thing. Yes I know, going in hurt it to begin with to some but what's done is done and the U.S. must stay in Iraq. It's that simple. If you leave with Iraq in that state watch the region destabilize further. Will you care then? I'm also looking down the road. Iraq is an incredibly important country to just abandon. The advantages for the region are immeasurable to just let go. Iraq ca be the gateway to a prosperous MIddle East. A country that can lead Islam out of the dark age it wallows in and into a bright new era for its people.
5 - ss
"Iraq is a great experiment in a region that has no experience with the concept of democracy."
I wouldn't call Turkey or Bahrain or Kuwait excellent models in democracy compared to English speaking nations.
But compared to Iraq...
Which does beg the questions:
Why pin our hopes for democracy in the Middle East on Iraq, a country that has a 40% rate of adult literacy (low even by the standards of the region), and that an undersecratary of Defense described as "awash in munitions"? (This was said at in a speech, posted on the DOD website, back in early 2004)
Why did we fail to recognize that there are good candidates for democracy in the region, and bad candidates for democracy in the region, and this determination has to be made based on conditions inherent in the countries themselves, not our foriegn policy goals or knee jerk reactions to a terrorist attack?
Especially when you consider the lessons of the Algerian elections back in the 90's, and the subsequent civil war there when the wrong elements won.
Why did we pin our hopes, and the hopes of everyone in the greater Middle East who wants to see democracy flourish in their region, on Iraq, another country with serious internal problems that were well known to people with influence in the U.S. before the invasion?
Why did we fail to recognize that Iraq was a bad candidate for democracy?
IMHO, it was because bin Ladin escaped to Pakistan, and the powers that be in the US needed a war to cover that failure. Iraq was chosen because it's former leader, may he writhe in agony eternally, made his country available.
Very little thought was given to the prospects of democratic success in Iraq, or even how long term violence in Iraq could negatively impact countries in the region that had a better chance at attaining democracy.
6 - alessandro nicolo
Well said SS. Very good questions and points.
7 - SHARK
Nicolo: "Do you care what happens to Iraq?"
Shark: NO.
Nicolo: "That's what hurts the American political image - the going in and coming out before the work is done thing."
I don't want American soldiers to DIE FOR AN IMAGE. That's criminal.
===
Here's the deal: We've lost. I don't care what we do over there, we can't force a tribal civil war into becoming our idea of a fine place.
LEAVE.
8 - alessandro nicolo
Shark, fair enough. Maybe you're right.
9 - Franco
Alessandro Nicolo sez...
On a wider scope, I think America's problems are deeper than George W. Bush. It seems to me, and I'm no constitutional expert on matters of impeachment, Bush's alleged indiscretions are not that far off from many past Presidents - Clinton included. He's not threatening democracy - Americans in general are. In some ways, the country needs to impeach itself - and by this I mean all the people who deliberately profit from ensuring America remains culturally and politically divisive. Start with all the special interests. Pinning it all on just Bush is not going to solve anything.
Alessandro Nicolo,
You’re above paragraph says so much. When the wider scope is not accounted for it leaves its victims with only seeing the glass of water half full. You show great humility is posting your opinion pieces here on BC and in inter acting with posters. However, don’t think for one minute that your being Canadian limits your right to take your posts to task on anyone diagramming with you.
America can use all the outside perspectives it can get that are not limited by failures in seeing the wider scope. Don’t back down from anyone here when this truth is challenged, because when you get right down to it, we are all in this together.
Iraq was literally stripped of a bloody dictatorial regime and replaced by fragile democratic institutions hastily pasted together. It should not surprise anyone that violence has been used as a diplomatic tool. Personally, I don't think the insurgents or Baathist loyalists or terrorists or whatever delinquent remnant of the pervious dictatorship is hanging on has much of a long-term future.
I agree with you and we are going to see if this is true.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Saturday that Iraq's armed forces are set for an assault on Baghdad to take out militias and rogue security forces.
"will hunt down all outlaws regardless of their sectarian and political affiliations,"
"We will also severely punish those [security forces] who do not carry out orders or operate in a partisan or sectarian way,"
Iraqis to lead assault to take back Baghdad
10 - alessandro nicolo
Thanks Franco for your comments. Building and training the Iraqi military and police has been a tough road. We'll see how it plays out. Either it goes Sharks way or the other way. Not sure if there's an in-between. It's impossible to predict. Only educated guesses are available. Iraqi's themselves are trying to make sense of everything. The problem is that the costs, as Shark points out, are high to America as well.
11 - Franco
#10 " alessandro nicolo
It's impossible to predict.
Yes it is, but I do not think from the persectrive of the US boots on the ground. They can do this and assist the more then 220,000 Iraqi special forces and police in this long over due engagement. We have the upper hand on this engaugment field and will be able to keep it and deal with the aftermath of any substancual surprizes the come along, IF, and that is a big IF bother, the new congress dose not do something stupid.
Where I think it becomes impossible to predict is with the new congress and what they could surprise us all with. Many who want us out now.
The new speaker of the House, on her second day in power sent Bush a letter on Friday that clearly stated no more troops bud. I think they are already dug in on this option. So what boots are on the ground in Iraq as we speak will have to be enough to do this job.
Even so, I still see the glass of water half full.
12 - alessandro nicolo
The Speaker is etching things in stone. Not wise. Not in politics. Not in an ever changing region like the MIddle-East and Iraq. Because if conditions change rapidly she may have to rethink or change her opinions, options and positions. Then she'll look like a liar. A puppet. She'll alienate. The wise politician leaves an open door. An opt-out clause. Don't go with the polls. If you rationalize decisions by what the other person is not doing you will find that your own backyard is a mess. Proceed as a leader.
13 - Franco
#12 " alessandro nicolo
The Speaker is etching things in stone. Not wise. Not in politics.
I agree that is important in politices which she is making a big mistake in her recent actions, and only two days into office.
But even more imporatanly, in being in her powerful posision and making this kind of mistake she is putting real lives in harms way.
I would like to add that it is also not wise to let the terrorest see see your hand. It allows them all the more light for planing.
14 - alessandro nicolo
That's America. It's a democracy. It will always show its hand. Though KIssinger probably understood this better than anyone. The media and the public want to know everything. Up to a point we are entitled to it. But in times of war where is the line drawn?
15 - Franco
To add some additional thoughts to post #13, It would be wonderful to think that Nancy Pelosi was insightful enough to know both of these facts and was really working at deceiving the terrorests and that these were just her self sacrifice statements for the good of the nation, but she is neither that sharp, nor that self sacrificing.
Nancy Pelosi is all SPECIAL INTEREST, in capital letters. And more is being made of her being the first women in this position instead of whether she is (a) gifted and (b) qualified in reasoning with such power over the lives of Americans, our nations new directions which will effect the world at large.
So fare in her fist week she has proved (a) and (b) faults as she possessing neither. Where you will she her mileage will be with in the blinders of "special interest", which is the extent of her expertise.
She is on the main stage now and all is fair in love and war as I know she herself embraces. It's going to be interesting to say the least.
If she dose not make a complet ass of herself she could be an added ticket for a Hillary run at the WH. Then I think I'll move to Canada.
16 - alessandro nicolo
don't get me going on canada. the political grass ain't greener here. it's a swamp land for politics.
17 - Franco
#14 "alessandro nicolo
The media and the public want to know everything. Up to a point we are entitled to it. But in times of war where is the line drawn?
When it still remains in the heart of the publics and the nations best interest and it results in saving lives instead of costing them.
It can all come out later for media and the public and be told to us in that fashion and we can all do an accounting of those actions. Why does “where is the line drawn” always seem to favor the press and public over others lives who could be at stake for it.
Some decisions would be harder to call then others, but in this case, concerning the new speakers actions, it is a no brainier and the reason she went ahead with it was simple partisan politics at the expense of risking lives, both US, collision forces, and Iraqis. That should be a crime in and of it self and I believe that 99.9% of all front line soldiers would agree.
Lines have to be drawn and we should never lack the common sense when and where to draw them and then require full accounting after. We elect officials to be smart and savvy in this arena. They wanted the job, so do it.
In my option.
18 - Franco
#16 " alessandro nicolo
LOL, OK, I'll lay off Canada, I too see a lot of what is going on up there. However as long as they have the likes of you and hopefully many more, you are not lost.
Thinking about it though, if you get to much time on your hands, why don't you do a BC opionion pieces on Canadain politices on the subject of terrorism.
19 - alessandro nicolo
I have thought about it. i just haven't had the time to ponder and research. Canada is indeed in an interesting position.