I've certainly been gloomy in my outlook for the future of Iraq lately. But after reading the following
from the Washington Post, I've given up hoping for anything good in Iraq. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I hope so. From WaPo:
To balance the military options, Allawi is also involved in discussions with tribal and other leaders from the Sunni triangle to persuade them not to aid the various insurgents, including remnants from Saddam Hussein's government, foreign fighters and Islamic extremists loyal to Abu Musab Zarqawi.
"I say to them, if you want to be part and you want to run this country, then we have the elections. If you really represent the people of Iraq, January is coming and you can be elected by the people, and then you can decide what you want -- whether you want the multinational force or whether you want to make Iraq an Islamic state, whether you want to elect [Osama] bin Laden, it's up to you," Allawi said. "[But] you can't force issues on us; that's what Saddam did."
I was discouraged by Interim PM Allawi previously for his acquiescence before Al Sadr, but after this I think he is useless. To try to appeal to thugs and theocrats with the temptation of "you can enslave Iraq, but only if the people say yes first" is the final gasp of a free
Iraq. That was the posture taken before Hitler; his government was democratically
elected circa 1933. That was also the foolish
posture taken during the Vietnam war; we were fighting, not for an American system in Vietnam, but for the south's freedom to "choose" their form of government, even Communism. This is disgusting, and it makes me hate Bush and his god damned "hawks" all the more.
How can you people declare your love of America and support of our troops when you will sacrifice their lives so casually to support a group of primitive people voting themselves into another dictatorship? What is the point of kicking Saddam out, if we're only going to vote his cousin back in? Or vote in a Mullah, which would be infinitely worse
than the largely beaten, secular thug who was there before we invaded? What disgusts me most about Bush and his "hawks" is their cowardice; they have no courage and no moral clarity, and it is complete hypocrisy for them to apply those terms to themselves.
Moral clarity would require the resolve to install a secular
government based on individual rights
. Moral clarity would require some
regard for American sovereignty and the paramount value
of the lives of our soldiers, above and beyond any
Iraqi's. Courage would require Bush to kill the insurgents, not pooh-pooh them. Bush gives courage and self-defense a bad name. This is one of the principal reasons that I have decided to vote for John Kerry(the other is that Bush wants to lay the foundation for Christian theocracy); if the US is going to behave cowardly, I'd prefer we admit to it up front rather than talk like we have some courage and self-respect before prostrating ourselves. Hopefully Bush will lose in 2004, and then Kerry's cowardice will stir up the Republican party to generate a real candidate, one who will defend
America and her values, both domestically and internationally.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 2:07 AM