|
I have a thought on the current Iraq situation.
The Iraq situation is the same situation america had with england during the american revolution. Just replace federalists and democratic-republicans with sunnis and shiites. The founding fathers of the united states -- most whom fell into the same general demographic -- heatedly debated the formation of the centeral government for years before adopting the U.S. constitution. Even today there is debate over the role and function of the federal government -- despite a civil war that engulfed the nation more than century ago to settle the matter. Honestly, is it little wonder then the difficulties of establishing a government that satisfies both sunnis and shiites, who have been heatedly debating since the time of the roman empire?
The problem is Iraqis are unsure of their role, and of each other, in the new Iraq. Their history, while rich, is one of conquest, upheaval and oppression. The region has seen the persians, the greeks, the arabs, the mongols, the ottomans and even the british come and go with their empires. The 20th century alone saw the country go from monarchy to republic to dictatorship in a span of 50 years following WW1. For 35 years, starting in 1968, iraq was under the trannical control of the baathist party, with saddam hussein as its president since the coup in july 1979. During his time in power, Hussein dictated what people thought and did, and any opposition to his rule or his appointed henchmen was summarily executed.
As such, Iraqis just now are understanding what free and open self-rule means. It is not something that fits neatly into an artifical timetable and easily implemented after so many centuries of their unique history.
Notwithstanding, it is agreed that the current iraqi government must meet its end of the bargain. The United states has fulfilled its part -- and then some -- and our commitment has been absolute, but it is not inexhaustible. Iraq will not be lost because of perceived failure in policy by the united states, but rather the failure of Iraqis to implement the means of self-rule and national security.
I think the latest report on iraq illustrates the point, with little progress on the benchmarks outlined by washington for continuation of U.S. support and involvement. In the end, the Iraqis must do what is necessary to secure and manage their country so that they can enjoy the fruits of those efforts, and our men and women can come home with the mission truely accomplished.
The debate over withdrawl from iraq is a proverbial line in the sand. Iraq president Jalal Talabani has steadfastly maintained that america presence is both greatly appreciated and needed, acknowledging that progress has come slow. However, the prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, recently stated that american troops can leave anytime they want -- indicative that even the two leaders are as divided on U.S. involvement as Republicans and Democrats.
The question is, can the United states afford to be patiently tolerant in continuing support of Iraq as it stands on its own two feet, or likewise afford to turn its back on Iraqis while they are still on their knees? The question I posed has consequences either way, but one that will determine the future for all concerned.
__________________
"Spending for the common good" is not equitable to "spreading the wealth." Taxation for spending for the common good is paying a fee for services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and I get military/police/fire protection, infrastructure improvements, and mail services. Taxation for spreading the wealth is paying a fee for no services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and it goes in the form of a check to someone who pays no taxes.-menaz The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."-Marx & Engles http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357 January 20th, 2009. A date which will live in infamy.
Last edited by menaz; 07-26-2007 at 08:27 AM.
|
