The world watches as Iraq becomes
a litmus test of democratic success
By Amir Taheri, The UK Times Online
The old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will be perceived as truth, still applies. Evidence of this can be seen in the high profile, anti-Iraqi activists, such as Cindy Sheehan, the extreme left's latest willing puppet, as they persist in publicly defining Iraq as "US occupied".
If one wishes to consider the more common meaning of "occupy", as in to take up physical space, then they are entirely correct in their assessment. Our military and that of the coalitions do indeed "occupy" space in Iraq.
But the connotation of "occupied" as casually tossed out by activists is not a reference to the simplest of definitions. Instead they imply the US "occupies" in the military/political sense. That meaning, according to Merriam-Webster, is a: to take or hold possession or control of, or b : to fill or perform the functions of (an office or position).
Under those auspices, the US Coalition troops can hardly be considered "occupiers". We ceased being in control when the reins were handed over to the Iraqi Interim Gov't over a year ago, and on Bush's original schedule from the fall of 2003. Our military do not hold office, or stand for elections in the country. Nor do we steal oil to ease our own rising gas prices. And I'm sure most would agree they aren't anticipating Iraq to emerge as the 51st state in the union.
We do not "occupy". And I'm damned tired of hearing this at every media turn. We are a fledgling country's back up as they take their first historic steps to a new life. We are there to train their military trainers, and to cover their teams' backs as they go out on missions against the violent foreign and minority "insurgents". (That would be the same bunch we laymen don't hesitate to call "terrorists".)
It's high time the anti's get a better grasp on reality... or at very least, an elementary understanding of the English language and definitions. Occupy? Feh... Not even close.
Iraq has been a state for 84 years. Yet in all that time, this is the first moment that the Iraqis themselves are in charge of creating their own Constitution.
Show me even once in history where an occupying force, bent on control of their conquered prey, stepped back, helped keep an election safe for voters, and stood by while the population and their newly elected leaders carefully worked their way thru differences in order to create a government structure that would work for the majority of residents? All done amidst outspoken activists and media support at home.
In fact, the Iraqis have had more input into their creation than we have here in the US. Compare their opportunity with that of our own founding fathers - a handful of visionaries creating a timeless document for so many others who never spent a moment dreaming about a "united" colony.
For months the shaping of a new constitution has been the theme of popular political debates throughout Iraq. More than 300 conferences were held on the subject throughout the country, allowing an estimated 50,000 people to express the views of countless cultural associations, trade unions, guilds, tribal groups and religious fraternities. Iraq’s newly created free media, including more than 150 newspapers and six television stations, almost all privately owned, have brought the debate to every home in the country.
The first Iraqi Constitition was in 1921, written by the British establishing a monarchy. The second was in 1958 - written by military personnel and based on a Soviet model. Subsequent scribblings of such a document were later composed by the Revolutionary Command Council of the Baath party. And trust me... they weren't holding town hall forums for opinions.
Thus I found it a delightful read to come across a sane voice out of the UK - one in touch with reality. While we Americans go about daily, consumed with our selfish little domestic squabbles (an act in itself that is a beacon of freedom), then forget about it all with the latest DVD movie, the rest of the world's eyes are still trained on Iraq. It is Bush's experiment with spreading democracy. If it works it can again change the region's economics, growth and culture. And it's looming success, despite differences, has many worried.
It's no surprise that as Iraq plods steadily on, terrorists do all within their power to overshadow it with violence and chaos. Of COURSE our action in Iraq has increased terrorist activity. They stand to lose it all if Iraq suceeds.
Soon after the liberation of Iraq in 2003, Yussuf al-Ayyeri, a chief theoretician of al-Qaeda, published a book entitled The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula after the Fall of Baghdad. In it, he designated Iraq as “the greatest battlefield of Islam against the infidel and its native allies”. Al-Ayyeri wrote: “It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, its very survival, is American democracy. To allow Iraq to build would represent Islam’s biggest defeat since the loss of Andalusia.”
The terrorists advance Iraq's failure by bombs, murders of innocents, fear and propaganda. American anti-war activists merely stick to propaganda and property damage. Mr. Taheri's viewpoints, peppered with historical perspective, pulls the rug out from those who continue to view the US Coalition's liberation of Iraq as an occupation, and instead sheds light on the great experiment captivating the rest of the world. The anti-war extreme left are foolish enough to bypass reading such enlightening material. But our enemies are not so jaded to the stakes of Iraq's outcome.
Worthy of a read in entirety. See link above.
No comments:
Post a Comment