[Rhodes22-list] Political - 21st Century 'Ernie Pyle"

[Rob Lowe]

Gentlemen,
You both raise some very good points.  Historians for years will be writing
about that failings of the Bush administration to "understand the extend to
which their culture made it difficult to move from an authoritarian
government to (a) liberal democracy".

The military has done an exemplarily job given their impossible "mission",
which still has no definition.  The military has done a much better job than
it's civilian leadership.  The military won "the war", in that they defeated
Sadam's army in about three weeks.

But I disagree with the notion that the only choice is to stay in Iraq.  We
can not impose a liberal democracy.  The Iraqis don't want one.  We can not
make them want one.  They have no history of democracy and only understand
authoritarian governments.

The Shia's are fighting amongst themselves right now while we've armed and
paid off the Sunni.  Soon enough the Shia and the Sunni will be fighting
each other.  The Kurds will sit on the sidelines until they can either break
away or be forced into the battle.  There can be no democracy in a country
unless the citizens of the country want it, and Iraqis do not.  Al-Malaki
wants to rule, not compromise.  Has his political party tried to negotiate
with al-Sadr?  No, he attacks him and is now trying to isolate him
politically.  Has Al-Malaki tried to negotiate with the Sunni or their
Awakening Councils?  No, he refuses to do so and the Awakening Councils were
formed to protect Sunnis from the (mostly) Shia national army.  Soon, Shia
and Sunni will be fighting each other.  Hard to say where the Kurds will
ally, I would expect they will sit this one out and declare independence
once the dust settles and no one can stop them.

We can not fix this situation.  No amount of nation building can succeed
where the parties are not interested in forming a democracy.  Face the
inevitable, get out now.  Bush knows he's lost the peace but is passing the
buck to the next president just so he doesn't get the blame.  If the
democrats get elected and withdraw, they will be blamed for "loosing the
war", even though it was lost the day Bush decided to invade.  If McCain is
elected, he certainly won't withdraw, but he can't win it either, no matter
what he does.  So we go into a Vietnam type statement all over again.
The US won the war, but lost the peace because they had, and still don't
have, a way to win the peace.  They lost the opportunity long ago.  Face the
inevitable and get out now.

Some of  this is not much different than our own Civil War.  They only
"solution" is
a military victory by one party over another.  There could be no end to our
own Revolution, Civil War, French and Indian War, War of 1812, and all the
rest of the armed conflicts around the world, regardless of the nation,
without a military victory.  I can't think of any struggle that was resolved
without armed force expect perhaps the independence of India, and that was
an occasion where the occupiers lost the moral will to rule.  There have
been other instances of nations being granted self rule by their occupiers,
but that was only after their self interests expired or the costs were not
worth the returns.

So, withdraw now and let the inevitable happen.  To stay in only prolongs
the inevitable and costs us more in dollars and soldiers.  The British
learned the hard way you can not rule this region.  History does repeat
itself but no one in the Bush administration seems to know much about
history.  We could not win in Vietnam and we can not win in Iraq.  Get out
now and let them fight it out.  Just my 2 cents. - rob


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] 21st Century 'Ernie Pyle"


> Robert,
>
> The last sentence says it all, "There is a recognition that we did not
> understand the extent to which their culture made it difficult to move
from
> an authoritarian government to liberal democracy."
>
> Where shall we go now?  The world is a small globe - fast airplanes make
it
> smaller.  We as a nation are imperfect, but what nation is better?  Where
do
> Chinese dissidents who fear for their lives for their involvement in
> Tienanmen Square have to run?  In what nation can Islam evolve to the more
> enlightened passages of the Koran?  If we as Americans don't believe in
the
> spirit of 1776, what hope do we hold for the rest of the world, most of
> which envies our lifestyle and freedoms?
>
> I'm all for realism, including the 'meat' of the article you referenced.
> But, "where do we go now?"
>
>
> It's easy to focus on the Bush 43 failures and the difficulties of the
Iraq
> invasion.  That's one small part of a larger problem.  Solutions?
>
> Brad
>