Re: As prevalent within as rejected outside
TorgoX writes that what Bush is trying to do in Iraq will do poorly even if the Iraqis are lucky.
That's really really dumb.
No one knows what will happen, and as noted many times before, no one had any other solutions beyond "let's let the situation continue to fester with Hussein in power." We tried something, and by all indications it is going very well. Sure, you can point out some of the tragedies -- there are many -- that have occurred along the way, but these will not prevent the long-term goal from occurring. It's like saying a football team had a bad game because the QB threw a few interceptions: what matters is whether they win in the end.*
Oh, but because I believe this, I am probably not "persuaded by the facts." Yes, people who disagree with you are closed-minded. That's so original. And insipid.
The facts are these: Iraq is progressing about as well as anyone could have hoped. There have been problems, including too many civilian deaths, too many insurgents, and a rebuilding effort that has not been strong enough in some areas. There have been many good things too, such as Iraq doing quite well governing itself for more than six months and just recently having extraordinarily successful national elections (which were secured primarily by Iraqi police).
By all indications, the nation is well on its way to having its own entirely independent country, with new executives to be chosen soon, and a Constitution to be written by the new representatives, to be ratified later this year. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, of course, and there are a large number of obstacles along the way. But the naysayers are the same people who said a handover of power last summer could not work, and that elections in January could not work. Why should we believe them now?
Ah, but Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. So this is doomed to failure. Is there a word for this that does not imply racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry? I am trying to think of one.
* And by the way, I couldn't care less about complaints about sports analogies in war. Our sports are simplified versions of war, in essence. And so when trying to simplify war for the sake of discussion, we naturally use something else we already have that is a simplification of war.
That's really really dumb.
No one knows what will happen, and as noted many times before, no one had any other solutions beyond "let's let the situation continue to fester with Hussein in power." We tried something, and by all indications it is going very well. Sure, you can point out some of the tragedies -- there are many -- that have occurred along the way, but these will not prevent the long-term goal from occurring. It's like saying a football team had a bad game because the QB threw a few interceptions: what matters is whether they win in the end.*
Oh, but because I believe this, I am probably not "persuaded by the facts." Yes, people who disagree with you are closed-minded. That's so original. And insipid.
The facts are these: Iraq is progressing about as well as anyone could have hoped. There have been problems, including too many civilian deaths, too many insurgents, and a rebuilding effort that has not been strong enough in some areas. There have been many good things too, such as Iraq doing quite well governing itself for more than six months and just recently having extraordinarily successful national elections (which were secured primarily by Iraqi police).
By all indications, the nation is well on its way to having its own entirely independent country, with new executives to be chosen soon, and a Constitution to be written by the new representatives, to be ratified later this year. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, of course, and there are a large number of obstacles along the way. But the naysayers are the same people who said a handover of power last summer could not work, and that elections in January could not work. Why should we believe them now?
Ah, but Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. So this is doomed to failure. Is there a word for this that does not imply racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry? I am trying to think of one.
* And by the way, I couldn't care less about complaints about sports analogies in war. Our sports are simplified versions of war, in essence. And so when trying to simplify war for the sake of discussion, we naturally use something else we already have that is a simplification of war.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment