In an earlier post this Jeremy Brendan fellow left comments relating to the Iraqi insurgency, which I wanted to respond to at length, simply because I thought there were points worth making.
What you're saying about Iraq is all purely conjecture. How can you assume that the success of the resistance will only depend on foreign support? You can't equate Vietnam with Iraq. They're being fought for different reasons on different terrain, with religion in the mix, not just Communism vs. Capitalism like Vietnam was.
I think this misses the fundamental point that no insurgency (at least that I am aware of) has been successful without outside support, either material or moral. As far as that goes, external support is necessary but not a sufficient condition for success.
How can you assume that the success of the resistance will only depend on foreign support? You can't equate Vietnam with Iraq. They're being fought for different reasons on different terrain, with religion in the mix, not just Communism vs. Capitalism like Vietnam was.
I think this misses the fundamental point that no insurgency (at least that I am aware of) has been successful without outside support, either material or moral. As far as that goes, external support is necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. As far as describing the ideological argument at stake in Vietnam as being fundamentally different than a struggle including religion, I'll skin that cat another day.
The Iraqi insurgency can be understood if you look back on the American Revolution. As much as you wanted your freedom from England, you didn't want to be occupied by France or any other nation.
This slides directly into my point - the American Revolution would have failed without French support. We were a proxy battle in the ongoing fight between Britain and France.
That is why Iraqis are fighting back versus the American occupiers. Many are not against America per se; they're just not willing to let their country be dictated to by Western powers who have promised to institute a system of gov't that is foreign to their culture.
Wow. This slides from idealistic tripe, into foolishness and then into racism. I'm going to let all the unsupported (by either fact or reason) statements slide, just to point out two things - how far does one expect this 'foreign to their culture' thing slide? Aside from the rise of democracy in Latin America and Asia which both give lie to the basic premise, and aside from the fact that if a culture cannot adopt something foreign to itself, then it can never advance or change, I really don't like the basic idea of trying to assert that since they're brown they just can't manage the enlightenment all white people are entitled to.
The closest thing to a democracy in that region is Iran. They elect representatives but have a religious branch of gov't that watches their legislation and makes sure that they're not going against their religious edicts.
But I thought that democracy was foreign to their culture. Never mind, when it gets to cases, this statement is as true as it is useless. I would argue that Turkey is, by far and away, more democratic in Iran, and since Iraq borders both on Turkey and Iran, I would consider both to be in the region. But calling Iran a democracy because they vote is like calling Stalinist Russia a democracy because they voted to. (Or Syria, or Egypt, etc.) One might also note that Israel is a democratic country. Of course that would run counter to the thesis that everything done by or involving Israel is fundamentally bad.
Only an idiot would consider Iran to be a democratic country. Turkey is 1000 times more democratic than Iran.
If Iraq becomes even semi-democratic, it will be a million times more democratic than any other arab nation.
Posted by: BSP at June 3, 2004 10:13 PMhow far does one expect this 'foreign to their culture' thing slide?
I didn't mean to imply that democracy was foreign to Iraqi culture. All I meant was that the Iraqi people did not invite this American invasion/occupation and a great many of them are opposed to being force-fed American-style democracy.
If Iraq votes to be an Islamic theocracy (like Iran), will the U.S. support this democractic decision? Nope. Paul Bremer has a veto that can nullify any decision rendered by a sovereign Iraqi gov't (even after the hand-over).
Iran has an elected President (Khatami) who fights for the rights of his people. He is opposed by the Ayatollah and the legislative branch but at least they're making progress towards a balanced state. Just like any other nation in the world, Iran needs to improve its government. Nobody's perfect.
The Iraq Situation isn't a black and white issue. America is bringing good things with the occupation too; they're building badly-needed infrastructure, such as water and oil pipelines; building schools across Iraq; helping to feed some of the hungry; etc.
At the same time, the Americans are killing innocent civilians and trying to quell a resistance movement by violent means. In other words, the occupation may have noble aims but its methods are far from it. (Abu Ghraib, launching missiles at wedding parties, kidnapping Iraqi families to try and track down former "Saddam Loyalists" or Ba'athist sympathisers, not educating their troops about the Geneva convention, etc.)
I really don't like the basic idea of trying to assert that since they're brown they just can't manage the enlightenment all white people are entitled to.
What you say here could be considered racism. I wasn't implying that all "brown" people aren't democratic. I was just pointing out that Iraq hasn't ever been democratic and it is difficult for a country to just leap from one extreme to the other, unless forcibly and with great loss of life (like a revolution, for example).
Posted by: Jeremy Brendan at June 4, 2004 07:02 PM