Divided They Stand
By David Brooks, NYT's
Listening to the forked tongue of anti-Iraqi mentality has had my head spinning more than once. Examples?
Bring the troops home! ... oh no, wait. The real problem is we don't have enough troops on the ground.
We can't shove "freedom" and elections down another country's throat, and how dare we decide that they desire democracy! No... wait again. Okay, they really wanted the elections, personal freedoms and entry into the western culture and trade after all... but.....
...we're occupying and controlling that country! They don't really have freedom. They are just puppets and fronts for American political powers and Bush's oil buddies! Oh NO! Geez... they may have a "federalized" government and that's baaaaaaaaad! How could Bush have let this happen???
What the heck is it with Iraqi critics? Can't they make up their minds, or even their complaints?
The latest poo-poo naysaying going on about the anti's disapproval of the Iraqi Constitution just makes me want to roar. Let me say this to say to those of you who refer to the US as "occupiers", yet persist in criticizing the Iraqis' paths and decisions... and excuse me for cyber yelling but...
WHO ASKED YOU? LIKE WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS????
We liberated (not occupied) them from Saddam - NOT to be America clones, but to be freedom loving Iraqis. Brothers and sisters in freedom are strong allies against terrorists who find such freedom "un-Islamic". It's that simple. So stop all your whining about the paths Iraqis' are choosing. Let them be exactly what they wish - Iraqis! They know best the compromises with which they can live.
Granted, we all hope they ultimately continue to be allies of the west and not of the terrorists. And of course, that will be the next full-scale doom'n'gloom predictions making on the rounds by the negative prone press and ilk. But letting the Iraqis decide for themselves was a risk we took when we decided to "liberate" and not "occupy". What did we have to lose? The world knew Saddam was an ally of the bad guys, despite the fact he didn't wear the latest al Qaeda issued tee that would easily identify him as a terrorist friendly dictator to our not so bright American Congress.
So Iraq is busy using it's liberation (or "occupation" to the most stubborn and unimaginative) to form Iraq the best way they see for success. And I say... you GO boys and grrrrls! I wasn't around for the Founding Fathers. This is downright inspiring!
My same point of view is articulated far more eloquently by the former Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. The New York Times' man-in-the-street, David Brooks, caught up with Galbraith in hopes of, no doubt, sniffing out another anti-Bush blast for upcoming edition. But what he got was quite a surprise.... and to his credit, he reported it as just that. A surprise.
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."
Instead of copping to the notion that the Iraqi Constitution must please the American Congress and MSM by creating false promises that no one would live up to, Galbraith nails the reality on the head. To create some artificial bond on paper amongst these three warring groups would be about as successful as Clinton's brokerage of a nuclear disarmament with North Korea. Just ain't happening folks.
Instead, this Constitution takes in consideration the hesitancy and fears of all, and defines a way to make all motivated to accept the Constitution.
This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.
The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.
Galbraith is also frustrated with the "division" word bandied about by the all-knowing-yet-not-so-bright-press-and-novice-critics.
"It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."
Ahhh... the power of simple and direct logic.
Perhaps the most devasting impact of the Iraqi constitution on the anti's cries of foul is it's absolute confirmation that Iraq is under the control of Iraqi's, and not Bush puppets. They obviously have chosen to find democracy, peace and prosperity for them and their posterity their own, unique way.
And ain't that what democracy is all about?
And since great minds do tend to head in the same direction, check out another version of the Iraqi Constitution Review! For the Opinion Journal's echo of all this...It's worth noting, more broadly, that alarums about Iranian-style Shiite theocracy in Iraq have been raised repeatedly over the past few years, often by American or Arab proponents of the Sunni dictatorships that are the Mideast status quo. But one of the most underappreciated stories in post-Saddam Iraq has been the extent to which the Shiite community has remained committed to a constitutional, democratic process--despite the best attempts of the terrorist Zarqawi or cleric Moqtada Sadr to provoke them to violence. Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who adheres to a "quietist" school of Islam that shuns excessive mixing of religion and politics, has continued to play a particularly constructive role.
Both articles are worthy of your full attentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment