Fri. Jan 28, 2005
No Democracy Like Our Democracy
I should have seen this coming, but I didn’t, and thus my spleen overfloweth. There’s a fresh new democracy brewing, of an as yet unknown flavor. It ought to be curiously exciting to all who cherish freedom. But leave it to the “experts” from one of the world’s oldest democracies to crap all over it, perhaps even endanger those who fight for it, and/or claim credit where nearly none is due.
It comes from both sides of the aisle, but I can only deal with one at a time, so you’ll need to read the whole thing to get your full dose of partisan enjoyment mixed with some crow (Yeah, at this point I’d move on, too, if I were you).
I suppose this may have started with Sarah Boxer’s article in the New York Times, “Pro-American Iraqi Blog Provokes Intrigue and Vitriol”: “When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.”
With that opening paragraph, it began. The charges of placing “sexed-up speculation” in the lead that endangered these Iraqi bloggers. The fact this “ghost on the Internet” was a researchably real human being who had recently made a trip to America, a trip that was reported in multiple major news sources. A host of people responded harshly, included one of the bloggers in question, Mohammed.
Then it happened again, when Jeff Jarvis and Eric Alterman got into it, resulting in this column from Alterman:
I pointed out that it wouldn’t tax my imagination to wonder if perhaps some of those bloggers might be planted by the CIA to confuse credulous readers, especially since supporters of the Bush invasion appear to be numerically significantly over-represented relative to the rest of the population.
I don’t see just what has to be proved, when all I was doing was saying, “Well bud, this kind of thing is why the CIA is in business.” It’s not as if I made any specific accusations, but Jarvis seemed to think the idea so horrific as to be not only unmentionable but also unthinkable.
Well, it wouldn’t tax my imagination to wonder if perhaps Alterman was being paid by some dark organization to undermine democracy in Iraq … but I have not a shred of evidence, so it would be irresponsible to say so, and if Alterman was actually in Baghdad, it could be dangerous to say so. But do go on…
I’m pleased that Jarvis has found a reason for living, but I can’t really share his uncritical enthusiasm for blogs, nor, in this case, his unqualified cheerleading of this crazy elections scheme. Whoever heard of an election where the candidates have to remain in hiding for fear of their lives; where the election observers have to “observe” from an entirely different country because it is too dangerous to show up anywhere near the election; where its sponsors are already attempting to undermine any conceivable criteria for judging whether or not it’s a success.
Yeah, I guess Iraq’s crazy that way. Who ever heard of an election where there was only one candidate, and it was each citizen’s duty to vote for him, 100%. That’s the kind of election Iraq had just three years ago. I’d say this one, as odd as it might seem within our 200 year old framework, is quite an improvement over the old model.
While Alterman denigrates it by calling it a “crazy elections scheme,” it is definitely “foreign.” To us. And therefore easy to minimize and ridicule, if that’s your desire.
At the Babylon Hotel tribal sheikhs in long gowns and Arab headdress gathered to hear politicians extol the virtues of Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister, who was being touted as the only man with the strength and will to solve Iraq’s numerous problems.
Across town Kurdish voters were treated to large slices of chocolate cake, folk dancing and poetry readings praising democracy and reminding them of their duty to their nation.
Elsewhere street urchins were discovering that democracy can pay. They have been hired en masse to put up posters and billboards on every wall space available and probably paid a little extra to tear down the slogans of rival politicians.
Some of the campaigning methods are fairly crude.
One thing not in doubt is that the elections will go ahead and that there will be a result sometime next month. “I think that despite everything, many Iraqis will vote on Sunday,” Fadel Alfatlwi, the head of the Iraqi Institute for Peace and an independent candidate, said. “With the occupation and all the horrible things that have happened, people dream that they will be wealthy and happy. That dream starts with the election.”
Times Online: “Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose”
Oh, we can’t have such optimism from the source, not without domestic credit given! What is that, a British newspaper? Figures. Not a Democrat or Republican among them. How about Juan Cole:
There are, of course, lots of elections in the Arab world. Some are more rigged than others. But there are almost no elections where the sitting prime minister and his party would be allowed to be turned out unexpectedly by an unpredictable and uncontrolled electorate. If Iraqi interim Prime Minister Allawi’s list does poorly and his political star falls as a result of a popular vote, something democratic will have happened in Iraq, for all the serious problems with the elections.
Something democratic. Not the mature centuries old democracy we take for granted here in the US. Something democratic, where there has been nothing democratic.
I also have to note that a goodly portion of Alterman’s response (“I’m pleased that Jarvis has found a reason for living”) is pure ad hominem that adds nothing to his argument. Not even a chuckle. It is merely indicative of attitude. And bias.
One might even wonder, since members of the Media Left mocking these elections “appear to be numerically significantly over-represented relative to the rest of the population,” just what is their motivation? Journalistic truth? Hope for the Iraqi people? Or just another notch in the belt, another bullet in the partisan ammo pile?
While Alterman’s home page claims he’s “the most honest and incisive media critic writing today,” his words above appear to be neither honest nor incisive. Mostly insulting and condescending. But he’s far from alone.
There’s already much talk about the level of turnout we’ll see on Sunday, in what areas it will come, and whether a lower-than-some-standard turnout means democracy will be weak in Iraq. Or somehow illegitimate, because X% of this group or that did not participate.
Well, take a look around. In 1999, turnout was 34.94% of the voting age population in Switzerland. In 2000 it was 54.64% in Canada. In 1996, it was 47.18% in the US. Were any of those elections poo-pooed or the elected government deemed somehow illegitimate?
As Carlo Valenzuela said, “Look, in my country we have elections that are not perfect, that have been marred by violence and terrible intimidation. But still people go to the polls. And still the results are accepted as legitimate.” He’s talking about Colombia, where in 1998 the turnout was 40.47%. Mr. Valenzuela is now the chief UN election official in Baghdad.
While the number of Sunnis who vote in this first election may not be as high as one would hope for, due to disagreement or intimidation, I think that will change. And as John Podhoretz notes, “If white South Africans had refused to participate in that nation’s first-ever free elections back in 1994, nobody on earth would have argued that their lack of participation invalidated the election results.”
A quite valid point. But then he goes on. And this is where we flip the partisan coin of the Iraqi elections.
So let’s talk turkey about the dark talk emanating from the media and opinion leaders this week.
Their pessimism isn’t really based in concern about Iraq’s elections. It’s really based in concern about the success of American policy in Iraq.
Anti-Bush partisans — both Democrats and Leftist ideologues — understand that if the elections are seen as a triumph, they will be seen as Bush’s triumph, and they cannot stomach it.
John Podhoretz: Iraq Pessimists’ Real Fear
That’s a good one. “Bush’s triumph.” Mr. “Mission-Accomplished, Bring-It-On, Then-A-Thousand-More-Dead.” To quote David Brooks, “If we muddle through in Iraq and some semidemocratic nation slowly emerges, it won’t be because of American skill. It will be because the democratic creed is so strong it can withstand the highest incompetence.”
I’m not going to rehash it all again, it’s summarized in Good War, Bad Occupation. Nor should you expect me to re-argue it in the comments. I simply refer you to our Geneva Convention obligations to provide security and stability for the country we occupied.
Security? We created so little security in Iraq that Western companies can’t even do the billions in reconstruction work we’ve contracted them to do. It’s not safe, and therefore, billions planned for reconstruction are unspent.
Stability? Originally, the Pentagon had planned to withdraw our last troops from Iraq in December. Of 2004. That means the Bush administration figured they could secure and stabilize Iraq, rebuild its infrastructure, and create a functioning free-standing democracy … in about a year and a half. By last month.
That was their plan. How has it worked out?
And this result is a “triumph” for Bush? A month after they planned on having our troops completely out of Iraq, we find our troop numbers are as high as ever. Not that it means any Westerner, in uniform or not, has one shred of safety in Iraq. Or the many Iraqis who are trying to help carry out these elections.
As Oberon put it in a blog entry now lost in the 404 vapor (gang, you can’t “Conquer MSM” if you can’t keep your “permalinks” online), “Iraq is now so dangerous to foreigners outside of American military bases that journalists are failing to go out and report on all the good things that are happening there.”
Our troops travel in heavily armed fast moving convoys. The trip from the airport to the Green Zone in Baghdad is an unsafe Mad Max gauntlet, after our forces have “controlled” it for nearly two years. Iraqi elections workers insist their faces be blurred in media reports, out of fear for their safety. Some of them have been executed in the streets, in broad daylight.
And still, they carry on. In the midst of the mess that has dropped down around the average Iraqi, they try to make the best of their life. And in the situation they find themselves, the majority of them will go to the polls Sunday, and do the best they can to pick up the pieces and start anew.
Can we put aside our partisan hackery long enough to look at the reality of this situation? Can we step outside ourselves to consider the wonder of a country of 25 million having the chance to express their will after three decades of tyranny … even for a moment?
No, we can’t.
Because it’s all about us. It’s all about scoring points, for or against the administration.
Iraqis are going to literally die for democracy on Sunday. By the dozens, maybe even by the hundreds. I truly hope that doesn’t happen, but I think we all know Zarqawi and his fellow thugs will try their best to make good on their promises of murder. They have admitted, they are fighting against democracy. They won’t be targeting Americans on Sunday, they’ll be doing their best to intimidate and kill Iraqis. And Iraqis will go to the poll knowing this. Accepting this. By the millions.
Why aren’t we talking about that?
Why aren’t we talking about the thousands of votes that will be cast in the Iraqi election … right here in the USA? Why aren’t we asking why there’s only five poorly spaced places where they can vote? Why aren’t we (we being all of us, left and right) showing up there with coffee and welcoming waves, to greet them on their first chance to vote?
I’ll tell you why. Because promoting your party is more important than promoting democracy. We are so far up our own colons we can’t even see the light of day from whence we came. Before you can have Democrats, or Whigs, or Republicans, you must first throw off the tyranny that ruled you and form your first elected body. And a constitution. It’s been 228 years, and we clearly have lost touch with that concept.
So I may I suggest all you political “experts” shut the fudge up for the next couple of days, and pack your partisan yap. Watch how much this “crazy elections scheme” means to millions of Iraqis, despite the hole we’ve placed them in. Watch them willingly go to the polls, despite the risk to their life, because of the payoff. You might learn something. If there’s a portion of your political lizard brain still open to new thought. Because it isn’t every day you get to witness a democracy being born.
And maybe offer a prayer that they don’t end up like us. Because we can be awfully damn disgusting in our self-centered petty partisanship.
Published 04:48PM, Fri, Jan 28 2005
Category: Iraq Politics
Previous: «« Circuit City and Rebate Pricing ««
Next: »» A First Step »»
Peanut Gallery
“That said, I wouldn’t tell anybody to ‘shush’ no matter how vitriolic and useless their opinion was, unless they were endangering U.S. troops with their words.”
I see your point, but I wasn’t really trying to silence anyone (as if I have that power … and if I did, Alterman wouldn’t be at the top of the list). I’m suggesting that maybe for the next couple of days, people use their ears and eyes, not their perpetually engaged mouth or tapping fingertips. That maybe this is a rare time, one worth observing, and maybe learning from.
Monday, by all means, everyone back on the partisan ramparts, throwing iceballs. Same as it ever was…
You say you have “mixed feelings about Iraq,” and that’s amazingly uncommon these days. Most seem so certain, one way or the other. And I guess in some ways, I fall into that category. I’m certain we should have done a lot better by the Iraqi people, in fact, I’m certain we promised we would. And that saddens me greatly this weekend. More than my venting here can possibly express.
Through the web, I’ve had a chance to read the words of people like Zeyad and other Iraqi bloggers (see Zeyad’s right column for links). Their suffering and circumstance is not some abstract story, condensed to 400 words on Page 5A of the local paper. I’ve come to “know” Zeyad in the same way I’ve come to know dozens and dozens of bloggers here in the US. And therefore, in some odd way, I feel like I have let him down.
I don’t pretend to know what the eventual outcome will be, but I think your “Scenario 1” went out the window about May, 2003 . It will be quite some time, and through hard efforts other than our own, before any of their neighbors look at Iraq and think, “I want me sum of dat!”
I just hope the Iraqi people can salvage some form of representative government from this … and I do believe they will. It won’t be perfect, or in many ways, even recognizable to us, but it will provide them with an internal focus and direction they’ve lacked for years. A tiny bit of empowerment, that I think can only lead to more.
Even among the Sunnis, over time.
As for the long term impact on the US, this weekend, that’s not what’s on my mind. Because that die was cast a long time ago.
When you take away the “weapons of mass destruction” fantasy, Iraq to me is an experiment to see if democracy can be spread in the Middle East, the way communism/fascism was spreading in Asia in the first half of the 20th century.
My “mixed feelings” come from not believing the experiment will work, frankly, leading to scenario two as a best case. The religious cultures over there are just way too different, and the U.S. doesn’t (and likely never will) have the manpower to go around removing every oppressive dictator and building interim governments. What I’m afraid of is this president might try, knowing full well that “democracy as the good version of smallpox” is a pipe dream. America wouldn’t be the first to try living beyond its means to execute a utopian fantasy.
But, maybe I’m wrong. No one knows if it will work until it’s tried.
Regardless of whether the broad experiment works or not, it still probably will turn out better for Iraq than what was there.
Meanwhile, outside the world of hypothetical experiments, Iran and North Korea are building some real crap.
Well, I’ll be interested to see how hard you slam Jarvis, Reynolds et al for inevitable triumphalism, Bush-worship, and/or ‘the left opposed this’ canards when the Iraq elections are over.
Reynolds is already out with an “I’ll smear the whole left because I found a nutball professor in Colorado” screed and the elections have barely begun. Jarvis has yet to say one single word worth reading about torture and inhumane treatment by Americans, because it doesn’t fit with his favorite bedtime stories about why we’re there.
You often say overdone partisanship comes from both sides, but you’re much readier with the (powerless) Dem examples than with the (in power) GOP/fellow traveler ones. Who’s in charge? Right. Whose failures therefore matter more? Right.
And what else should opponents of those failures do but get after the people who make them? That’s democracy, Reid. People care, they get angry, they speak up; no one guaranteed that would be decorous. And the subject will and should always mainly be our democracy, not someplace else’s.
“Well, I’ll be interested to see how hard you slam Jarvis, Reynolds et al for inevitable triumphalism, Bush-worship, and/or ‘the left opposed this’ canards when the Iraq elections are over.”
You expect me to step in the middle of the current partisan claptrap between Reynolds, Jarvis, Alterman, Kos, Willis, etc.?
Don’t hold your breath, Thomas. No one would like it (in fact, no one involved would read it), it would have zero impact, and it would be looked upon by most as “more of same.”
I’ll only say this about the current partisan claptrap between Reynolds, Jarvis, Alterman, Kos, Willis, etc. ... it’s enough to turn me completely off popular Democratic and Republican politics. They are like a mosh pit out of control, and threaten to drive the audience out of the place.
It’s capped by people arguing over who qualifies as a liberal, with Oliver being the judge. By all means, do insult and toss anyone who uses that phrase outside your personal meaning, because you sure wouldn’t want them to vote for your candidate in 2008. No if they aren’t pure enough, by your standards.
There isn’t one shred of gain from their “interaction.” It’s a “conversation” that slurs all involved, left and right. It’s disgusting.
And it’s now regular fare at these sites.
You likely disagree, but I can’t parse whether the blame is 51-49 or 49-51. Gosh, it might be 50-50. As I said, the result is my disgust for both sides.
“Reynolds is already out with an ‘I’ll smear the whole left because I found a nutball professor in Colorado’ screed and the elections have barely begun.”
I only read part of it, and as I do whenever I visit his site (as well as others mentioned above), I take it with several grains of salt. But he made one statement that I could have made, because it’s the truth: “The alternative is for the Democratic party to get smaller as it gets angrier, and angrier as it gets smaller, until it just doesn’t matter anymore.”
When I read the sites of most “popular” bloggers on the left, that’s exactly the tonality I hear (with the possible exception of Kevin Drum, as long as you don’t look at the comments). The anger, the “idiots-wingnuts” slurs, the seeming inability to discuss politics without inserting ad hominem and insults … gosh, it makes me want to be a Democrat!
And you know, I’m someone who would really really like to hear some optimistic ideas, some constructive criticism from someone who can deliver it without mixing in the ad hominem.
It’s nearly unavailable on the web, from the left or right.
“Jarvis has yet to say one single word worth reading about torture and inhumane treatment by Americans, because it doesn’t fit with his favorite bedtime stories about why we’re there.”
I’m not going to defend or attack any blogger for their selection of subjects, because I await the day I’m asked “why haven’t you written about Subject A, all you write about is Subject B.”
Despite the pipe dreams of many, blogs are not news services, or encyclopedias. You can read them, and judge them both on their content, and by what they don’t say. But you can’t demand they write about what you want.
You can only go away. That’s what I’ve done. I don’t keep going back to places that don’t offer what I want. I don’t want ad hominem with my politics, I don’t want slurs with my analysis, I don’t want smugness in the aftermath. There are places that no longer seem capable of that, so I don’t go there anymore.
And if I listed them, you’d find the left/right breakdown fairly even.
“You often say overdone partisanship comes from both sides, but you’re much readier with the (powerless) Dem examples than with the (in power) GOP/fellow traveler ones. Who’s in charge? Right. Whose failures therefore matter more? Right.”
Have you looked lately at the category Iraq on this site? You’ll have to dig a long ways to find much positive about the moves of the current “right” administration, going all the way back to May, 2003. In fact, I’ve been called an “armchair general” for my supposedly constant harping on our failures in Iraq.
So, I’ve got critics on the right. And you appear to be criticizing my topic matter from the left.
Sounds about centrist to me.
“And what else should opponents of those failures do but get after the people who make them? That’s democracy, Reid. People care, they get angry, they speak up; no one guaranteed that would be decorous.”
I’ve “gotten after” Rumsfeld, Cheney, and company countless times. I failed to find need for the words “wingnut,” “idiot,” etc. ... yet I was very angry when I wrote those pieces. I was able to make my point without slurs, though.
But I guess it’s just me. Some fucking people would rather slam the asshole wingnut neo-cons who got us into this fucking mess in Iraq through their idiocy and greed, because they’re just egregious bastards, and the words simply come out before they can control it.
I read a sentence like that last one, and though I might agree with a kernel or the factual underpinning, the attitude turns me off.
Anger is fine. Expressing it is better than keeping it in, I suppose. But it’s better for that individual. If Democrats want to win Independent voters like me who are quite disgusted with the actions of the right, you’ve got to turn me on, not turn me off.
You will turn me on with ideas, pointed criticism that is responsible in its rhetoric and attitude, and logic. You will turn me off with anger you can’t focus or control, even if it is legitimate.
It’s that simple … if you’re looking to 2008. If you’re just looking at today, fire away at the wingnuts with both fucking barrels. Just don’t expect me to read it. In fact, expect it to increase my desire for a viable third party.
“And the subject will and should always mainly be our democracy, not someplace else’s.”
Because we’ve got ours, right? Let them get theirs.
You know, there’s got to be a happy medium between Bush’s overstated Inaugural Address, and your statement above. I hope someone can find it. I’d likely vote for them.
But here, today, for me, it’s about what’s going on in Iraq. Period. No matter what anyone else says or does.
I said “mainly”, not “exclusively.”
I’m not saying you haven’t criticized Republican failures. I’m saying I haven’t noticed you recognizing Republican partisanship as much as the Democratic variety, let alone criticizing it. But I may well have overlooked that.
I also wasn’t revisiting the bad language issue you’ve noted in the past; neither were you, I think. You were criticizing Alterman for his criticisms of Jarvis. Those criticisms may have been off-base or ad hominem (I don’t think so) but they used no bad language.
Iraq elections are a good thing, I agree. I’ve never said otherwise, nor has anyone you mentioned. (Some have questioned the timing. And as you know, it’s not the overall turnout that will determine political utility of this election now, it’s whether the Sunnis in certain areas (are effectively forced to) secede.) Now those elections are being used to club “the Left” and “Democrats” of our own democracy for being insufficiently appreciative. That will tick many of us off, and many will say so.
You opened the door to asking about people’s choice of topic—“Why aren’t we talking about that?
Why aren’t we talking about the thousands of votes that will be cast in the Iraqi election … right here in the USA?”. Jarvis, of all people, is pulling the same stunt today.
I suppose the reason is a lot of people think it doesn’t matter what they say, they’ll get smeared as pro-fascist, anti-democrat “pond scum” etc. no matter what. And others recall “I’m not your monkey” responses when they asked similar questions. That’s the state of our national discourse over here. I agree, that’s not good. I just don’t think you’re helping as much as you maybe think you are.
“I just don’t think you’re helping as much as you maybe think you are.”
Oh, that’s simply not possible, since it is my firm belief that I’m not helping at all. That would require that the people involved actually read what I say and at least think about acting on it, and I have better odds of winning the lottery. Two weeks in a row.
What you’ve read, kindly considered, and responded to is merely my verbose venting. That’s all this site is. I’m not a cog in the blue-red wheel. I have no illusions that I influence one soul, or express the view of anyone but me.
If it appears I’ve been unequal in my venting at one side or the other, I’m sure it’s just an oversight of one type or another. But more and more, I think it might be best if I don’t comment at all on this process I’m so far outside.
You know, that Democratic-Republican process. I can’t really even pretend to understand it anymore, not in the form I read it on the web, this powerful newly touted political blogosphere. And thus, I’ve begun to just sound like I’m issuing Jeremiads, which is as boring and pointless as partisan screeds.
Thank goodness the Michael Jackson trial is starting, eh?
But more and more, I think it might be best if I don’t comment at all on this process I’m so far outside.
Well, I’d be truly sorry if this conversation had that effect. I see that I hadn’t given you any credit for your take on Podhoretz’ article; my mistake.
Re disappointing lefty blogs: maybe you’re reading the wrong blogs (and maybe so am I). Some sane, well-spoken, Democrat-sympathetic, intelligent, lefty/progressive (you choose) bloggers include:
perhaps less familiar
Legal Fiction (“publius”)
The Decembrist (Mark Schmitt)
Paperwight’s Fair Shot (“paperwight”)
Off the Kuff (Charles Kuffner)
everythingsruined (John Paul)
sideshow (Avedon Carol)
isthatlegal? (Eric Muller)
more familiar
Talking Points Memo (Josh Marshall)
Matthew Yglesias
I don’t imagine you’d agree with these folks 100% of the time, but they don’t froth, they’re well-spoken, and they back up what they say. As do you.
Take care.
“Well, I’d be truly sorry if this conversation had that effect.”
No need to be sorry, whatever way it goes, as it wasn’t this conversation (you’ve been completely civil and rational). It’s a lot of things. Over quite some time. Go Look At My Navel.
Recent Comments
- Ryan Ward (The Original Dither)
- Reid (The Not So Public Option)
- elburro (The Not So Public Option)
- Stephanie Hunter (The Not So Public Option)
- Reid (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
- Susan (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
Good post. I never really got into reading Alterman for precisely a lot of the reasons you talked about. He seems incapable of even fathoming that someone would have a point of view different than his own, which makes him pretty worthless as a pundit to me. That said, I wouldn’t tell anybody to “shush” no matter how vitriolic and useless their opinion was, unless they were endangering U.S. troops with their words. I don’t think that can be said of Alterman (he’s not giving away bunker locations). Freedom of speech is either free or it’s not.
I have very mixed feelings about Iraq. Many are similar to those you mentioned above. Certainly, it’s a wonderful opportunity for Iraqis to choose their own government after +/- 30 years under the thumb of a brutal dictator. This will be an interesting experiment, because it will tell us if there really is a hidden desire among people in these dictatorships and theocracies to have their own representative government.
There are three scenarios that come to my mind…
1) The Iraqi government could succeed, which would be good if surrounding areas followed their example, revolted against their oppressors, and created their own democracies. Under that scenario, we wouldn’t conduct these wars ourselves, but would probably provide some resource support. The world is a safer place, we don’t perpetually have nine of 11 divisions in rotation (I think that’s the number, can’t remember).
2) In my eyes, it’s not such a good thing for our own interests if Iraqi democracy succeeds, but surrounding countries fail to take the lead and revolt on their own. Because then the U.S. will be knee-deep in the business of nation-building and sacrificing our own troops for other people’s freedom. There’s only so long the American people would stand for that.
3) It could fail, which would be disastrous considering the threat from Iraq is presently much greater than the days before the Iran-Iraq War. Nothing is accomplished. No example is set.
At this point, I’d much rather play the odds at 50-50 (this being greatly over-simplified) than to wish for failure. I still resent the hell out of Bush for the lies he told to get us to Iraq, and many other things. And I dread scenario two as much as I dread scenario three, because it would be likely we’d overextend ourselves “spreading freedom” (one man’s freedom-spreading is another’s imperialism) the way the British and Roman empires did before they collapsed. I don’t want to see America collapse.