I would like to add to the chorus of those who say that our involvement in Iraq will span many years. I hope everyone is ready for that, because it's not going to be a quick operation like it was in 1991.
To imagine what a post-Hussein Iraq will be like, imagine a combination of Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. As in Afghanistan, there are factions that both dislike and mistrust each other. As in Yugoslavia, these hostilities are masked because the current regime is so oppressive. But, as was the case with Yugoslavia, remove that oppressive regime and all hell breaks loose.
The Kurds in northern Iraq have absolutely no intention of being ruled by Arabs. The region around the northern city of Kirkuk is very rich in easily-accessible oil, and the Kurds claim that their rights to Kirkuk go back centuries.
But, if you think that will create a tension between the Kurdish minority and a central Iraqi government based in Baghdad, that is only part of the story.
There is also a Turkish population in the Kirkuk area, and the Turks also claim that region. Moreover, the government of Turkey has been attempting to repress its own Kurdish population (of about 15 million, though estimates vary) for years, in the face of a separatist movement. So, as you might imagine, Turkey would view the formation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq with considerable alarm, for fear that this would solidify the separatist movement within its own borders. Not to mention its concern for the Turkish minority living in the Kirkuk area. And, of course, there's all that oil, as well. So, some Turksih officials have already threatened that, if the Kurds formed a Kursidh state in northern Iraq, then Turkey would invade. And, of course, this is something that Turkey has done in the past - witness Cyprus.
So, it's really quite a mess that we will be getting ourselves into.
And, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, all that fighting is among Muslims. It simply does not pay for non-Muslim countries to get involved in disputes among Muslims. The help is not appreciated.
There is quite a lot to be said for "The Prime Directive." For those of you not familiar with Star Trek lore, the prime directive is the prohibition against interfering in the development of other societies.
We should simply hand the reins of government back to the Arab Iraqis, and let them do what they want - reserving the right to go back in if they begin to develop WMD. Maybe we'll just have to do that once every ten years - who knows.
But, in the west, "democracy" has become our religion, and we ought to know better than to think we can force our religion on someone else.
Iraq has been one of the more secular societies in the Arab/Muslim world, and it is ony because Saddam has been such a tyrant that Iraq has not been subject to the destabilizing influence of militant Islam - that, and the fact that he reached a non-aggression pact with al Qaeda. But, remove Saddam and it will be open season for the terrorists. They will all be chomping at the bit to gain power there. And the 3% of the Iraqi population that is not Muslim will be at significantly increased risk. We don't even know that we can protect ourselves here in the U.S., let alone protect the Christians and other non-Muslims in Iraq.
Well, there is still the possibility of an 11th-hour coup, or assassination, or forced exile. Wouldn't it be great if either the military or the Saudis could manage to get someone installed who was willing to just hand over all the WMD stuff to the weapons inspectors (i.e., the real disarmament that was supposed to happen years ago).
Yeah, and then maybe the Red Sox will win a World Series. In other words, it would be nice, but I'm not counting on it.
I know some of you folks disagree, but I don't believe in nation-building as a reason for going to war. We didn't go to war with Japan and Germany in order to rebuild them. We fought them in order to eliminate a serious threat. No one was worried about nation-building when we entered the war.
But, more importantly, it was a lot easier to rebuild them than it would be Iraq, because we crushed them completely. There was no fight left in them. They were in no position to make demands. We won and they lost, and it was as simple as that. So, they were willing to take what assistance we would give them.
Iraq will be different. The only people who will be defeated will be Hussein and his loyalists. Everyone else is just waiting on the sidelines, like vultures, waiting for us to do their dirty work.
A Zen master and his student were walking along a river. The student said, "when will I attain enlightenment?" The master grabbed him, pulled him into the river, and thrust his head under water. The student began thrashing in the water, but to no avail as the master kept his head submerged. Finally, with all his might, the student freed himself and got up, gasping for air. The master said, "When you desire enlightenment the way you desired that breath of air, then you will have it, and no sooner."
It's the same with democracy. You can't make people want it. They have to want it for themselves. They have to be willing to fight for it. It has to be a matter of life and death to have it, or it won't work - and especially in the middle east of all places.
For us to "give democracy" to another people is entirely self-serving and self-aggrandizing on our part. Who says they want it? If Muslims know about anything, they know about "striving." That is what jihad means. Let them strive for democracy, if that is their wish. But, it's not for us to strive for them - that is impossible.
We should stop meddling in other peoples' business. If people want to live under despots, let them. If they want to live under the yoke of Shari'ah (Koranic law), complete with its beheadings, amputations and oppression of women, let them. It's not for us to say otherwise. We are not God.
We have the right to choose otherwise for ourselves. (And, btw, in choosing democracy for ourselves, we have the right to exclude anyone who seeks to undermine our choice.) But, we have no business choosing for someone else, and, in fact, it can't be done, any more than you can make someone stop smoking or drinking.
Liberty must be won, and it must be won by the people seeking it. In 1821, when Greece declared its independence from the Ottomans after 400 years of occupation, they said, "Eleftheria H Thanatos" ("freedom or death"). If you really want freedom, you have to be willing to die for it. It's that simple.
For us to think we can hand freedom to Iraq is pure hubris on our part, and it won't work.
If you don t mind, I m willing to forego the extra helping of imperialism regardless of whether it is being dished-out by the Muslims or by us and suggest we attempt a diet of extended duration, based on the prime directive.
To imagine what a post-Hussein Iraq will be like, imagine a combination of Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. As in Afghanistan, there are factions that both dislike and mistrust each other. As in Yugoslavia, these hostilities are masked because the current regime is so oppressive. But, as was the case with Yugoslavia, remove that oppressive regime and all hell breaks loose.
The Kurds in northern Iraq have absolutely no intention of being ruled by Arabs. The region around the northern city of Kirkuk is very rich in easily-accessible oil, and the Kurds claim that their rights to Kirkuk go back centuries.
But, if you think that will create a tension between the Kurdish minority and a central Iraqi government based in Baghdad, that is only part of the story.
There is also a Turkish population in the Kirkuk area, and the Turks also claim that region. Moreover, the government of Turkey has been attempting to repress its own Kurdish population (of about 15 million, though estimates vary) for years, in the face of a separatist movement. So, as you might imagine, Turkey would view the formation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq with considerable alarm, for fear that this would solidify the separatist movement within its own borders. Not to mention its concern for the Turkish minority living in the Kirkuk area. And, of course, there's all that oil, as well. So, some Turksih officials have already threatened that, if the Kurds formed a Kursidh state in northern Iraq, then Turkey would invade. And, of course, this is something that Turkey has done in the past - witness Cyprus.
So, it's really quite a mess that we will be getting ourselves into.
And, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, all that fighting is among Muslims. It simply does not pay for non-Muslim countries to get involved in disputes among Muslims. The help is not appreciated.
There is quite a lot to be said for "The Prime Directive." For those of you not familiar with Star Trek lore, the prime directive is the prohibition against interfering in the development of other societies.
We should simply hand the reins of government back to the Arab Iraqis, and let them do what they want - reserving the right to go back in if they begin to develop WMD. Maybe we'll just have to do that once every ten years - who knows.
But, in the west, "democracy" has become our religion, and we ought to know better than to think we can force our religion on someone else.
Iraq has been one of the more secular societies in the Arab/Muslim world, and it is ony because Saddam has been such a tyrant that Iraq has not been subject to the destabilizing influence of militant Islam - that, and the fact that he reached a non-aggression pact with al Qaeda. But, remove Saddam and it will be open season for the terrorists. They will all be chomping at the bit to gain power there. And the 3% of the Iraqi population that is not Muslim will be at significantly increased risk. We don't even know that we can protect ourselves here in the U.S., let alone protect the Christians and other non-Muslims in Iraq.
Well, there is still the possibility of an 11th-hour coup, or assassination, or forced exile. Wouldn't it be great if either the military or the Saudis could manage to get someone installed who was willing to just hand over all the WMD stuff to the weapons inspectors (i.e., the real disarmament that was supposed to happen years ago).
Yeah, and then maybe the Red Sox will win a World Series. In other words, it would be nice, but I'm not counting on it.
I know some of you folks disagree, but I don't believe in nation-building as a reason for going to war. We didn't go to war with Japan and Germany in order to rebuild them. We fought them in order to eliminate a serious threat. No one was worried about nation-building when we entered the war.
But, more importantly, it was a lot easier to rebuild them than it would be Iraq, because we crushed them completely. There was no fight left in them. They were in no position to make demands. We won and they lost, and it was as simple as that. So, they were willing to take what assistance we would give them.
Iraq will be different. The only people who will be defeated will be Hussein and his loyalists. Everyone else is just waiting on the sidelines, like vultures, waiting for us to do their dirty work.
A Zen master and his student were walking along a river. The student said, "when will I attain enlightenment?" The master grabbed him, pulled him into the river, and thrust his head under water. The student began thrashing in the water, but to no avail as the master kept his head submerged. Finally, with all his might, the student freed himself and got up, gasping for air. The master said, "When you desire enlightenment the way you desired that breath of air, then you will have it, and no sooner."
It's the same with democracy. You can't make people want it. They have to want it for themselves. They have to be willing to fight for it. It has to be a matter of life and death to have it, or it won't work - and especially in the middle east of all places.
For us to "give democracy" to another people is entirely self-serving and self-aggrandizing on our part. Who says they want it? If Muslims know about anything, they know about "striving." That is what jihad means. Let them strive for democracy, if that is their wish. But, it's not for us to strive for them - that is impossible.
We should stop meddling in other peoples' business. If people want to live under despots, let them. If they want to live under the yoke of Shari'ah (Koranic law), complete with its beheadings, amputations and oppression of women, let them. It's not for us to say otherwise. We are not God.
We have the right to choose otherwise for ourselves. (And, btw, in choosing democracy for ourselves, we have the right to exclude anyone who seeks to undermine our choice.) But, we have no business choosing for someone else, and, in fact, it can't be done, any more than you can make someone stop smoking or drinking.
Liberty must be won, and it must be won by the people seeking it. In 1821, when Greece declared its independence from the Ottomans after 400 years of occupation, they said, "Eleftheria H Thanatos" ("freedom or death"). If you really want freedom, you have to be willing to die for it. It's that simple.
For us to think we can hand freedom to Iraq is pure hubris on our part, and it won't work.
If you don t mind, I m willing to forego the extra helping of imperialism regardless of whether it is being dished-out by the Muslims or by us and suggest we attempt a diet of extended duration, based on the prime directive.
