In light of the recent Iraqi elections, I am shocked by the West's sense of surprise over the ensuing political instability and brewing violence in the country.
Ayad Allawi won last week's election by a very small margin. Many are now alleging that his win was the result of fraud, and that Allawi is nothing more than an American puppet. In my view, he most probably is. American officials are calling the elections a success. Well DUH! What are they supposed to say..."The democratic system we've spent 7 years and trillions of dollars trying to implement is a complete and utter failure...?" So I beg the question: how truly "free" is freedom or "democratic" is democracy when the Occupying power has the ability to renege the authority of whoever is democratically voted into government?
To think that an extraneous force can successfully implement a new, foreign form of government in a nation whose culture was not contructed in the same manner as our own is, I believe, a symptom of "the White Man's burden". This condition is a diseased ideology which compels the 'enlightened' Westerner to believe he must liberate the 'savage' from the shackles of his primitive life (see Rudyard Kippling's poem "The White Man's Burden). While I strongly opposed Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, I certainly don't believe the answer was to ethnocentrically impose a new social structure on this already unstable country. History shows that the only sucessful revolutions occur from within, and to be surprised by the Iraqi insurgency against Occupying Forces is dillusional.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be shocked that some Iraqis are taking up arms against the Coalition forces. This is war, after all. And while I do not condone violence in any form (hello...I go to the University for PEACE), I think it's imperative to understand the underlying causes of protracted conflict. So, if an outside force didn't agree with Obama's Health Care reform and therefore saw it fit to invade the USA in order to liberate those who opposed his government and set up a new form of rule in its wake, do you not think that Americans would band together in order to fight for their freedom? Hmmmm...maybe something like this happened around 10 years ago...? Now I'm NOT comparing the US government to Saddamm Hussein's brutal rule or bin Laden's terrorist attacks. I'm just trying to draw a parallel between people's conflicting definitions of "freedom". After all, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
Go watch the film "Battle For Hadditha" to get a good sense of what I'm talking about. But I'm warning you...it's rated R. Duh-duh-duuuuuuuh.
Anencephaly
11 years ago
To tell you the truth,I dont know what American forces are doing in Iraq anyway.Werent they supposed to just sort out Saddam( please can I call him So Damn Insane?),bring him to justice for the atrocities he inflicted on people,then leave?
ReplyDeleteEast and West-never the twain shall meet.Their philosophies and ideologies are just too different.
But do you honestly think it's that easy to take out a leader and then leave? Don't you think that we have a moral responsibility to try to clean up the mess we made? You can't turn back time. If we left, everyone would be complaining that America leaves their messes unattended. I'm not saying Iraq was the best decision, but regardless, you can't walk away from something this huge just because you caught the guy and brought him to justice. By the time his trial was over we were way down in the weeds on things over there. It would be like committing a hit and run.
ReplyDeleteAnd of COURSE there are going to be individuals completely opposed to outside forces coming in to try to "fix" a culture they don't even fully understand. How could anyone ever disagree and say that an invasion would not do that? But, at the same time, taking out a leader creates many messes that you just can't leave behind. That is irresponsibility on so many levels.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the US can't just turn their back on Iraq now that's it's created such a mess, but I'm not so sure that implies a continued military prescence. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't have gone in the first place. Whenever a colonial power enters a country, the tricky problem is always withdrawal. That's why so many post-colonial countries around the world are in such dire conditions; because the "white man" came, took what they needed, then left without any form of rehabilitation. That is also why there is such hatred towards the States in the Middle East.
The problem as I see it, is that American military presence is only causing more violence and insurgency in Iraq, making it a viscious cycle. As long as US troops are in the country, there will be more and more hatred towards the west. In that vein, it seems an inexorable conflict.
Once democracy has been imposed, there must be a system of reliable checks and balances. Still, the people should have the right to elect whoever they want, regardless of US interest, and without the threat of the US delegitimating whoever is democratically elected into office.
p.s. erica i don't have you down for my thesis research. are you in?
ReplyDeleteHow much is this war costing us U.S tax payers? I'm sure it's more than 1%. And everyone pays for it- not just those making $200,000.00 or more...
ReplyDeleteIts costing a lot of lives,thats for sure--for what??
ReplyDeleteBut how is it constructive to constantly wave the "It costs a lot... for what?" flag... this many years into a war that we started, how is it at all constructive to constantly state the obvious? We're in. Period. It's, "how do we get out?" that we should all be asking. And not just "how quickly?", but "how most constructively?" You can't deny we owe that to the Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteSteph... I thought just following you made me part of your thesis? Sorry! I guess you can use me... so long as I don't have to write a paper!
I agree with Erica, big surprise there.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think we should have gone either, but that's beside the point right now.