Centerfield

With the election over, and Bush never having to face another one, there's really no point in hoping things go bad in the world to spite Bush.

So lets hope things turn out for the best in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I do question the push for democratization in regions where there is little proven track record. Actually, in this sense, there is more hope for Afghanistan than for Iraq. Within the Arab world, there are powerful trends which militate against democratization. Iraq hardly looks like the best laboratory for an experiment.

I also question the specific way in which the election system has been set up there, though at this time of the morning, I'm not prepared to dig into the technicalities.

Rick is right.

The push for democratization in regions where historically it's never worked is a folly.

The British tried to do it in that region for decades and it played out extremely badly. The best predictor of future events is history. We can't force countries into democracy. Many times they don't want it and their cultures don't support it.

I personally supported going into Afghanistan. I think the potential for us to help those people set up their own government and rebuild their infrastructure is huge. But from my POV..that's not what we're doing. We're trying to force a group of individuals who've known nothing but tribalism into democracy. They need to choose the style of government THEY want. We can't foist a style like our upon them and expect them to make it work.

With the election over, and Bush never having to face another one, there's really no point in hoping things go bad in the world to spite Bush.

So lets hope things turn out for the best in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

If were on the right, I would take that comment as proof that you're a traitorous America-hating scumbag like all other Democrats. But I'm not on the right and I know your opinions a bit from this blog, so I'm sure you didn't mean that you hoped for our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan to spite the president. Right?

I was a little ambiguous with that statement.

Personally, I've always wanted things to go well in Afghanistan and Iraq, even if it helps Bush, whom I don't care for. Ultimately, it's our heads that will be on the block if Iraq fails and becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack Americans throughout the world.

But, I was suggesting that even if you were someone who hated Bush so much that you wanted things to go badly in Iraq so he would be shoved out of office, that position is no longer operative. Even if Iraq proves to be a total disaster, Bush will complete his 8 years in office. Failure at this point will only affect his historical reputation. It wouldn't necessarily diminish the Republican Party, which could nominate someone like McCain to clean up Bush's mess.

There is a logic to "the worse, the better" and I don't condone it out of hand. If you think that the current leader will be a bad in the long run, it follows that it would be better for the country if some of that trouble happened sooner, so the bad leader could be replaced before the situation was irreversible. It's not treasonous to hope that the last jobs report before the election comes out badly, if you're the challenger hoping to defeat the incumbent. But when human lives are at stake, I wouldn't go there.

If were on the right, I would take that comment as proof that you're a traitorous America-hating scumbag like all other Democrats

All "other Democrats" are America-hating scum?

I'm a registered non affiliated but I vote almost exclusively Democrat, so I'm taking that statement as directed at people like myself.

This kind of garbage is why the "uniter not a divider" meme is so much BS. It's this sort of gutter statement that pushes me even more to the left. Not only do I love my country deeply, I mourn the loss of it's honor and respect on the world stage due to the actions of conservatives.

Your comment Oberon is beneath reproach and contempt.

I believe Oberon was imputing that judgement to people on the right, and was not advocating it.

However, there certainly are some blogs on the left where I read things that make me cringe. Some of them seem to want us to lose the war in Iraq, either to "teach us a lesson" or to prove themselves right from the beginning. Some of these voices are far left, but others associated with the Democratic Party, in particular that wing of the party that villifies the Democratic Leadership Council. In particular, I'm pretty sure I could find such sentiments were I to look for them on dailykos.com

Heh. I was trying to point out that rickheller's statement could be taken the wrong way, and Carla does the same back to me.

But just to be sure -- the "Dems are traitors" thing is not my sentiment.

Carla,

Please get a grip, Oberon was lampooning conservatives (unfairly I think, since I happen to be one)not representing his own beliefs.... and then you react as if he were seriously representing that point of view.... talk about setting up straw men!

Seriously, I don't think it's unfair to question the patriotism of anyone who hopes for misfortune in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All,

I think this idea that it's wrong to try to foster Democracy in regions with little track record of them is a bit arrogant and short-sighted. I guess things like the Magna Carta and the American Revolution were "folly" as well....since the only previous track record those regions had was divine right monarchy.

If we were to follow that logic the whole world would be lined up behind thier local tribal chiefs and grunting at each other with clubs. Change has to start somewhere...and without ever being willing to take that first step (i.e. START a track record) you only guarantee that change will never occur.

I give the people of Iraq and Afghanistan way more credit then that. They are fully as capable of Renaissance Europeans or Early American Colonists of working toward representative government. Such processes are messy and riddled with bumps, curves and setbacks. They are often not universaly understood or accepted at first (our experience was the same) and sometimes they do indeed fail.... but the long term benefits are worth the risk. If they weren't then you and I would still be serfs working on our Lords plantations. Many Iraqi's and Afghans understand this and are working hard to give thier children a chance at a better life. They are putting thier own lives on the line for it.... not because we are forcing them to.... but because they see it as the best hope for thier own future.

I find it offensive to label that as "foisting" democracy upon them. We are giving them a fighting chance to make Democracy work for them. Ultimately it will be upto them to determine what path they take....and whether it succeds or fails. Stop de-riding such efforts for your own political expediency.

"Failure at this point will only affect his historical reputation."

Actually, all we have to do is look at our failure in Viet Nam to see that failure in these kinds of adventures affect lots of things, and they do so for a very long time. It's impossible to predict just how this current war will affect the future, but if I were a betting man I would put my money on ultimate failure in Iraq and lots of unforeseen consequences because of it.

I supported Iraq when I thought we went there for our own defense. Since it has been shown that wasn't necessary I have changed my position on the war. Our military should be used to defend the U.S., no other reason. You can extrapolate all sorts of reasons why our military is needed around the world, and in some areas you would be able to make a connection between overseas deployment and national security. Iraq isn't one of those.

Bring them home.

"I think this idea that it's wrong to try to foster Democracy in regions with little track record of them is a bit arrogant and short-sighted. I guess things like the Magna Carta and the American Revolution were "folly" as well....since the only previous track record those regions had was divine right monarchy"

The point is not that these areas are not capable of self-government and democracy. The point is that it's counterproductive to bring it to them by force or to try to force them to have an American-style system. I don't think Rick or anyone else is against encouraging democratization in these areas; the question is how far do you go in promoting democracy? I think going into Afghanistan was an appropriate action regardless of whether it results in democracy or not. Obviously, once we are there, it makes sense to try to help them build a democracy. However, it makes no sense to invade a country solely for the purpose of installing democracy. Moreover, like it or not, democracy is not a panacea for everything and there are situations where we have to make tough choices about whether it makes sense to promote democracy at the expense of sacrificing short-term interests. This is not to say we should prop up anti-democratic regimes, but to recognize that a foreign policy based explicitly on democratization has a lot of problems, not the least of which is the inevitable inconsistency. (As Jimmy Carter found out as well.)

RE: "Foisting democracy"

We're there, we broke it, we fix it. Arguments about whether or not we should have gone there in the first place are long moot and absolutely pointless. The alternatives to "foisting democracy" on Iraq suck considerably more, and the only chance for a stable government of any kind in Iraq right now that isn't a totalitarian dictatorship lie in establishing a working coalition democracy (which, I note, is not an "American-style" democracy) that can set their own forms and future path. Leaving now would be the same as handing Iraq over to the Iranian Mullahs and the Syrian-backed Baathists.

Yet many on the far left want us to fail, and the Islamofascists to win. With them, I don't think the scapegoating of Bush is the primary factor, just a bloody flag to wave. I think the anti-Americanism of the "internationalist" left is the primary factor. Democracy is not their friend, nor their goal.

Two quotes catch my eye. 1st from Carla, "The push for democratization in regions where historically it's never worked is a folly...They need to choose the style of government THEY want. We can't foist a style like our upon them and expect them to make it work."

and next from Tim, "I supported Iraq when I thought we went there for our own defense. Since it has been shown that wasn't necessary I have changed my position on the war. Our military should be used to defend the U.S., no other reason." (Sorry I don't know how to do the italics)

These quotes sound very much like traditional American isolationist conservatism. I've felt for some some that the longer term fallout of Iraq will be a resurgence of conservative isolationism.

If we move in that direction then we need to be quiet when we see tyranny in foreign lands. "Shouting from the moral high ground" is a fairly meaningless foreign policy. (Doesn't help the oppressed but makes the shouter feel better.) Put another way, we would need to become more like the French.

Chris, do the blockquote thing shown below. It'll italicize and offset automatically.

Oberon:

I apologize for jumping down your throat. Obviously I mistook your remarks.

And yes...there are leftist blogs who make gutter comments about righties. I'm not defending that. But frankly...the right gets away with gutter comments much more often than the left does. Lefties can't breathe in the wrong direction without having it splashed in the media. Righties get recognition only for the most heinous of their comments..and even then many are given a pass.

In terms of wanting us to lose the war in Iraq...I guess that depends on what you mean by "lose the war". I certainly don't want another American to die over there...but I do think that for us to leave having not installed a successful democracy will be a very good lesson for future US Presidents. That lesson would be allowing citizens of a country to choose their own style of government..and not forcing them to adopt ours.

On the isolationist issue..I don't think understanding the history of a region and knowing that certain governmental systems have historically not worked there is isolationist. It's common sense. That's not to say we couldn't assist the people in that region to bring about the style of government they envision for themselves. (And also in rebuilding the infrastructure that we've had a hand in screwing up as well)

Iraq has been a hypocrisy from the beginning...and that's why so many have such a problem with it. It's not about not helping nations when there's a problem (like genocide for example).

Chris, do the blockquote thing shown below. It'll italicize and offset automatically.

I did it, I did it!!!

"In terms of wanting us to lose the war in Iraq...I guess that depends on what you mean by "lose the war". I certainly don't want another American to die over there...but I do think that for us to leave having not installed a successful democracy will be a very good lesson for future US Presidents. That lesson would be allowing citizens of a country to choose their own style of government..and not forcing them to adopt ours."

Carla,

You can't be serious. You think it would be good for us to fail in installing a democracy? So, in other words, we should hope for a Saddam Hussein comeback? At this point, your argument about letting them choose their form of government is meaningless. First of all, saying that the people should choose their form of government implies some sort of democracy. I mean, I don't think the Iraqi people chose to have Saddam Hussein take power through overthrowing the existing goverment and installing an autocracy. And I doubt that the insurgents plan to take a plebiscite over what form of government to have. To root against establishment of a democracy just to teach future presidents a lesson is, frankly, silly. I suppose we should be glad that Viet Nam ended up with a repressive, Communist government because it taught the government a lesson.

I think you know better than that and I understand in a way what you are trying to say, but the fact is the choice was made as soon as the US invaded. I agree that the war was a bad idea and that we shouldn't be invading to install governments of our choosing, but come on . . .now that we are there, do you think the Iraqi people would be better off with an autocracy? The only option is to try to make it work. Rooting for failure makes no sense.

Plus, how do you know that Iraqis DON'T want democracy. You are making some assumptions based on limited evidence, ie, that since Iraq (or any other ME country)never had democracy, therefore, they don't want it. But that neglects the fact that, for most of that time, Iraqis have had governments imposed on them. The Shiia certainly seem to want democracy. By your reasoning, Germany and Japan really shouldn't be democracies because they didn't have it before.

Chris:

You may think I'm a traditional conservative isolationist and if I said we should'nt be in NATO, the U.N., the Korean peninsula, and have a naval fleet scattered all over the globe you would be correct.

However, I didn't say those things. I said we should'nt be in Iraq. That's a whole lot different than Lindbergh saying we had no business fighting Hitler.

Please show me where the constitution gives our government the authority, let alone the right, to commit U.S. troops to a foreign war that has never been shown to be necessary for the preservation of our national security.

If we have to send troops to Mongolia to defend our national security I would be for it. If we committed troops to Iraq as part of a NATO or UN force I would support it. But practically every reason the Bush administration gave for us going into Iraq has been demonstrated to be untrue. I make no charges they deliberately mislead the public, but mislead we were.

MWS:

Yes I do think it would be a good thing for us to fail in Iraq when it comes to installing a Democracy. I'm quite serious.

We invaded that nation under false pretenses. We've murdered thousands of civilians in the process and alienated ourselves from many of our important allies. It's a lesson in arrogance and acting like a schoolyard bully.

At this point, your argument about letting them choose their form of government is meaningless. First of all, saying that the people should choose their form of government implies some sort of democracy. I mean, I don't think the Iraqi people chose to have Saddam Hussein take power through overthrowing the existing goverment and installing an autocracy.

I don't think the Iraqis chose Hussein either. But the only way democracy works is if people want it and are willing to work for it. We've got no indication that the Iraqis want this...and we have plenty of indication that they don't. Why would they be fighting us so hard if they didn't? (And make no mistake...many of the "insurgents" are Iraqis..in Fallujah it was figured that roughly 95% of those fighting US forces were Iraqis).

If the Iraqis had come together as a people and decided they didn't want Hussein enough to overthrow him or revolt..and install a democracy themselves, that would be different. Then I believe it would be legitimate. Obviously that didn't take place.

In regard to the comment on Vietnam...I think in fact it was a good lesson. Unfortunately this President ignored that lesson. The country didn't get to choose their form of government..it was foisted on them by outside interests and our interference made it even worse.

I've seen in several places here people write that once the invasion took place..the argument about what to do is over. I strongly disagree. We have a choice here to allow Iraqis to come together and agree on the system they want..or even to dissolve their country and go back to the borders it had before it became Iraq.

Unfortunately instead..they'll be continued bloodshed and problems even after we attempt to install democracy. It's going to be another painful lesson.

I recommend this article by Peter Galbraith in The American Prospect.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8885

It suggests that the solution is to abandon the attempt at a unitary democracy covering all Iraq, and make a loosely coupled federated state. If so, the Kurdish area might well be democratic, the Shia area too, while the Sunni triangle and Baghdad might be more chaotic--but not in control of the national military.

I would like to get the most sustainable democracy out of this experiment, rather than a one-time election that doesn't take root.

Tim;
I didn't mean to suggest anyone was/is an isolationist conservative. I've just felt that many would begin to sympathize with that approach to foreign policy as Iraq gets messier.

Carla;
Wow! Opposition to a President and/or a party does lead to some very interesting stands. I'm dumbfounded by your stance...scared actually.

Please show me where the constitution gives our government the authority, let alone the right, to commit U.S. troops to a foreign war that has never been shown to be necessary for the preservation of our national security.

Well, Tim, since you asked....

Article 1, Section 8 gives the Congress the absolute power to declare war and attaches no qualifications or restrictions whatsoever to that power. The actual tactical management of hostilities is a function of the Executive Branch. On October 11, 2002, Congress specifically granted the President authority in his role as Commander in Chief (that's Article 2, Section 2) to prosecute war against Iraq. Or was that simply a rhetorical question?

If the Iraqis had come together as a people and decided they didn't want Hussein enough to overthrow him or revolt..and install a democracy themselves, that would be different. Then I believe it would be legitimate. Obviously that didn't take place.

Carla,

Saddam filled mass graves with those that DID attempt to revolt right after GWI. They received no support from the US or the international community and were slaughtered. This is how an authortarian regime maintains its power, thru fear and death.

Why you cannot support with a whole heart the people of Iraq in forming a democracy is beyond me. That is what is best for them, for us, and for the whole world. Yet, because of how it was started, and who started it, you are blind to what is best for all.

Carla,

I just find your statements so astonishing as to almost leave me speechless. Well, not quite. During the campaign, you were saying we can't abandon Iraq now that we broke it and that Kerry would find a way to fix things. Now, I guess since it's Bush, you want everything to fail--that will show him!

Granted, the war was started under false pretenses. Does that mean that we now just say, ok, forget about, go back to your dictatorship? I don't even know how to respond to that.

As for saying, the only way democracy works is for the people to decide on it, that's obviously not the case. The people in Japan and Germany didn't decide on democracy, we decided for them. That seems to have worked out ok. I'm not comparing those situations with Iraq, but as a general statement, what you say is nonsense.

As for Viet Nam, what you are saying is that you were glad that the Vietnamese suffered under a harsh, oppressive regime because it taught the United States a lesson. Wow!

Whether we acted like an arrogant bully is irrelevnt to what we do now. The war was a mistake, but it seems to me that we now have to make the best of it. We can't just walk away and say, oh yeah, we learned our lesson. Sorry, Iraqis. Do you care at all that you are likely condemning Iraq to a civil war? Apparently not.

"I've seen in several places here people write that once the invasion took place..the argument about what to do is over. I strongly disagree. We have a choice here to allow Iraqis to come together and agree on the system they want..or even to dissolve their country and go back to the borders it had before it became Iraq."

You're not talking about a choice. It's not like there's going to be a referendum saying, "vote for one: democracy, dictatorship, theocracy." You are not "allowing" them anything. You are saying that the strongest group that is willing to inflict the most violence will decide for the country. That's the reality. Is it our fault that it's come to that? Yes. Should we never have come? I would say yes we should not have. But letting the country dissolve into chaos is no policy; it's simply a way for liberal/leftists to wash their hands of the situation. Let's be very clear about the consequences of what you are saying: first, it is likely to strengthen militant Islam; second, it is likely to cause great suffering to the Iraqi people. In fact, let's be clear about this: if we walk away, the Iraqis will suffer a hell of a lot more than the United States. If you are so concerned about all the Iraqis we killed, I can't understand why you aren't concerned about the ones that will be killed in the civil strife if we leave.

And, again, I repeat, how the hell do you know that the Iraqis don't want democracy? You have absolutely no evidence of that. Your argument that,well, if they wanted it why are they fighting so hard, defies logic. It's obvious that, however you define the insurgency, it doesn't include anywhere near a majority. IN the US, a substantial number of people opposed the Revolution. Does that mean we didn't want independence? In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Iraqis (ie, the Shia) are indeed showing they like the idea of democracy.

You seem unable, as you often are, to get beyond partisan sentiments and acknowledge that this is beyond Bush. It's more than just teaching him a lesson. He got us into it, but we now have have a responsibility not to just dump and run. I think the Bush policy was a fiasco and I certainly don't support him. But you just can't resolve it by saying, let Iraqis decide through civil war. That is simply not a responsible position. But it seems to be the position of much of the purportedly moral left that seems more interested in punishiing Bush than in dealing with the reality of the situation. You seem more concerned that a successful democracy would redound to Bush's credit than you are with the reality of the alternative, which is likely bloody chaos, a return to autocracy or a theocracy.

Carla, I have a lot of respect for you and I think we agree on a lot of things. And maybe you are right that ultimately it will be impossible to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. But to hope for that result is, to me, utterly irresponsible.

Frankly, on this subject, you are validating my feeling about the feckless, irresponsible left that seems more concerned about reining in the United States (and making sure Bush gets his) than about dealing with real world problems.

Tully:

It wasn't a rhetorical question and I accept the language as stated in the constitution. I should have inserted the word "continue" into my statement, as in: what authority does the government have to continue to commit troops knowing what we know now? Congress gave the authority based on faulty intelligence that was interpreted as a threat to our security. That has been shown to not be true.

The Federalist Papers were very clear in explaining the the framer's view toward the function of the military. No large standing armies in times of peace, no use of the militia (i.e. national guard) as a surrogate army but rather as a force to quell internal rebellion, to counteract governmental tyranny at home or defend against invasion of our homeland. No use of the military at all(policing, nation building) except in the defense of the nation and by extension, the defense of our national security. The constitution gives the executive and the senate the authority to make treaties and enter into foreign alliances. That's why I would support our action in Iraq if it was through NATO or the UN. There is a constitutional basis for this.

I realize Congress and the President can do more or less anything they want until they are voted out of office. It's only my humble opinion that continued prosecution of this war is an abuse of constitutional power.

Ironic comment from Carla: she writes that lefties are held to an unfair standard in the media, and in the next paragraph announces that she hopes we're forced to withdraw from Iraq in failure.

I think I understand her argument: she saying that if we fail in Iraq, we'll avoid even bigger and more costly failures later. And I think that argument is both morally and logically wrong.

Alright, so those of you who are skeptical that democratizing Iraq can be a success, out of curiosity, how did you come to form your opinions?

I ask you to think a little bit: how did you come to form your opinion that democratizing Iraq is impractical? Evidence from both sides is widely out there, including from frequent arguments right here on this blog.

To what extent did distrust of or internal opposition to the GOP play a role in which arguments you paid attention to? And, of course, the question goes the other way as well, to supporters. I'll think about what the answer is for me.

I believe that in the long run, Iraq will be a stable democratic state. Long run means 50 years, and my only evidence is that I'm an optimist. (Hey, war between France and Germany is almost unimaginable today. Compare to 60 years ago.)

But in the short run, every indicator regarding a viable democracy in Iraq -- stability, popular support, reconstruction, etc. -- is nowhere near the "tipping point" where positive feed-back loops get established. (i.e., if violence is reduced, police can spend more time dealing with each act of violence, leading to less violence...)

I understand this is pretty much the expert consensus. I'm happy to read opposing evidence though.

Facts coming out of a war zone have historically been somewhat tainted by spin-doctors. What ever happens will happen.

While I'm not endorsing Carla's viewpoint, I am concerned about what Bush would do if he won a quick and decisive victory in Iraq. Losing would probable mean I would have to attend a bunch or funerals (and I really hate funerals). But the sloppy road to war in Iraq does not give me great confidence in Mr Bush's common sense.

So lets play a game of pretend. Assume that the Iraqi army and government are an overwhelming success by July of 2005. What next? Syria? Iran? Yemen? Korea? War without end? Crusade?

If Mr Bush says "Iran has WMD and is about to attack us." Does he have any credibility left? Will the country follow him again? Would he ignore the will of the people and attack anyway?

Personally I wouldn't trust the man to give me correct change.
But then I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist : )

Bob,

It seems to me that you and Carla are operating on some pretty dubious assumptions. First, it's obvious that Iraq won't be stable for many years, if ever. Second, you assume that, once it is stable, Bush will inevitably do this again. I think both assumptions are questionable and they are pretty much intertwined with each other.

First, I don't think anyone in the Administration expects Iraq to be stable by July of 2005. Rumsfeld has talked about American troops being out within 4 years. That doesn't sound like they anticipate a rapid success any more. As long as American troops are in Iraq, the physical ability to take military action against other countries, at least on the ground, is limited.

Second, I really believe the Administration has no more appetite for these kinds of adventures. One of the things that fueled Iraq, I believe, was the idea that it would be easy and, therefore, no messy clean up. Despite Bush's rhetoric, I don't think they ever really wanted to go after North Korea or Iran which would have been much tougher nuts militarily. I think they have even less appetite now and most observers recognize that taking out either country's nuclear capability would be much more difficult that when Israel bombed Osirak. The Iraq War is not particularly popular and I doubt that the Administration is likely to court further trouble.

Now, I recognize that you naturally assume the absolute worst about Bush so you attribute no rationality at all to him or the Administration. But I disagree. The one thing they are is attuned to public opinion and I think they recognize public opinion, even among the base, is unlikely to support more Iraqs at this point.

Marc, I'm on virtually the exact same page as you. I agree that there's no reason to think Iraq will suddenly be an unparalled success, so there there's no worth in wondering what would happen next in those circumstances.

i've been saying for some time now that a majority of the American people viscerally wanted a disproportionate response to 9/11. Afghanistan was the proportionate response. Iraq was the disproportionate extension. It was the the demonstration of the use of the saber that we needed to make in order to show that we were willing to back up our new policy of not being especially patient and tolerant of terroists, nations that supported/tolerated them, or nations that felt free to do whatever they felt like while jerking the UN around.

After the obvious and expected step of Afghanistan, we still needed an example. We picked on the known bully that no one liked to symbolize "here's how it's going to be from now on."

It may well have been bad over the long term if liberating and democratizing Iraq had gone over as well and as easy as a 3 week certificate course. But like we agree, that was never likely in the eyes of anyone sensible. The fact that the Iraq project has been so trying, so uphill, and the outcome so uncertain is, if nothing else, educational. My feeling is that Americans' needs for retribution and putting the world on notice have been either sated by Iraq, or chastened by Iraq. but IMO it doesn't matter all that much how much is satiation and how much is chastening. Bottom line, I think our taste for and our sense of the long-wisdom and feasibility of agressive foreign adventuring is well along in the process of diminishment.

I don't expect us to invade Iran or North Korea any time soon for a variety of reasons, including a lack of resources and a sense that it wouldn't go well. BUT, as we approach these nations over the next few years with carrots in trying to resolve differences, we'll wave the stick, and those nations will be well aware that we've shown a willingness to use it. And IMO, that makes all the difference.

Or, other nations will call our bluff, knowing we're overextended, running up debt and popular support is on the wane. That's one of the potential unforseen results of this war.

What for instance, would we do if China issued an ultimatum to Taiwan? What COULD we do? Ditto Korea.

Marc: Just because I paranoid, doesn't mean someone not out to get me.

Mr Bush is going to have to do a lot of very sensible and practical things to get back my respect. Like fixing social security with out destroying it, fixing the Medicare drug mess, nominating a centrist for the Supreme Court, appointing a moderate as the chief justice, securing the southern border or not starting another war before we finish the first two.

Afghanistan was more than sufficient to scare the other countries in line. The Iraq war has removed the threat of the "big stick" by tying up our troops and makes us look like a bunch of arrogant idiots, who bit off more than we can chew. Most or the Muslim country (and half of Europe) are laughing their head off at our predicament.

I hope you are right about this administration leaning its lesson, but I'm not going to take their word for it. They are going to have to prove it.

BK,

I disagree with you that the public wanted Iraq because it wanted a disproportionate response. You may be right about wanting a disproportionate response, but I think the reason the public supported Iraq is that the Administration sold it a bill of goods about WMD and a spurrious connection to OBL. Without that, I don't think he would have gotten support.

I also disagree with you (and I may be misunderstanding what you said) if you are saying that Iraq will be salutory by putting countries on notice about our willingness to use the big stick. I think that's probably true of Afghanistan, but I think all Iraq did was make countries think, we better get nukes or these nuts are going to invade us!

Bob,

You are not going to get me to defend Bush on principle. And I am certainly not able to read minds. But from what I see, there is not much stomach for going after either North Korea or Iran. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't sense momentum for that unless things turn drastically wrong. And, frankly, North Korea threatening Japan is one of those things that could ultimately tip the balance. But apparently, the US was advising Japan, ironically enough, not to provoke North Korea. Hmmm, does this mean the Administration has become appeasers?

Well sure, you're right, they can TRY calling what they believe is a bluff. But ask any poker player how risky it is to call what you think is a bluff. If it's not a bluff, the price is about as high as it gets. and that's the point.

I agree that our resources are finite and that the many that are deployed now place some short term limits on our choices. But none of this precludes redeployment should the severity of another threat seem great enough. Nor is it the case that our resources are limited to military options.

I find laughable the notion that invading Afghanistan was "sufficient to scare other countries into line" as you put it. The fact that so many people love to say how they supported doing it is evidence all by itself. the fact that so few opposed it is even more.

I don't think we could have done anything LESS without becoming a laughingstock. Rather, in order to show just how very seriously we'd be treating things from now on, we had to go PAST what everyone said was fair and sensible. Responding predictably and reasonably sends the message that nothing has changed and that business as usual can be expected. Going past this is what suggests that things are going to be different from now on. This strikes me as a pretty common sense notion.

I wish more people who oppose the admin's Iraq policy would decide whether we are a formidable evil empire scaring everyone else or a bunch of idiots being laughed it. This story seems to change based on the needs of the argument. Personally,I seriously doubt that

Most or(sic) the Muslim country (and half of Europe) are laughing their head off at our predicament.

IMO, the Muslim nations are at best whistling by the graveyard, and more likely running scared. The smart European countries are probably more scared of their own problems with islamic fundamentalism than they are worried about our foreign policy.

The Harris Poll. Nov. 9-14, 2004
"Do you think the invasion of Iraq has helped to protect the United States from another terrorist attack or not?"
Has Not 53%
Has 46 %
Unsure 1 %

Rather, in order to show just how very seriously we'd be treating things from now on, we had to go PAST what everyone said was fair and sensible. Responding predictably and reasonably sends the message that nothing has changed and that business as usual can be expected. Going past this is what suggests that things are going to be different from now on. This strikes me as a pretty common sense notion.

Let me get this straight: you supported invading Iraq because it was unreasonable. And being unreasonable shows common sense.

Okay, then.

Marc:

I don't want Iraq to fail. You're misunderstanding. I want it to succeed. And I want it to do so under the system or systems decided by it's citizenry, not the US.

I understand you and others here think my stance morally and logically wrong..and you're entitled to your opinion. But to be candid...anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and who supports forcing this region into a democracy are immoral and illogical. What we should be supporting in Iraq is LIBERTY.

Democracy isn't congruent with liberty in this case..as we're seeing. In order to bring democracy to this nation..we're having to literally murder thousands of Iraqis and torture others. You'll forgive me if I don't see a whole lot of morality there. To hope that we can bring democracy to this region that has historically shunned it over and over again is a fool's errand.

You're also assigning to me something that I've never condoned...leaving Iraq before it's fixed. I do believe however that if that's the threshold for leaving...we'll never be out of there. At least not if "fixed" means a system of government not chosen by it's people.

And this idea that they show up to the polls to pick their style of government isn't what I condone either. Regions should decide what they want....send people to represent each region to a chosen location..and let them come together and decide what to do. Whether it be breaking up the country into smaller countries or choosing a style of government for the entire nation...it should be their choice.

At this point..to hope for a democracy there is even a more heinous irresponsibility. Does it punish Bush when it fails? Sure...but that's not really the point. It shows us the lessons of arrogant foreign policy, unjust invasion and the oppression.

Morality is a funny thing, really. There's a lot of gnashing of teeth on this comment thread about how I'm apparently immoral for wanting democracy to fail in Iraq. Perhaps. But it seems to me that it's in fact the most moral position to take...given that the route to democracy is paved with a whole lot of Iraqi and American dead.

And if the shoe were on the other foot...and say...North Vietnam decided to invade our country and depose Bush...and then decided without our consent to put us into a Communist system....how moral would that be?

Nope, Oberon, I didn't support invading Iraq. The reason I didn't is that I didn't think we could democratize it. I thought it was a bad gamble. Now that we've placed our bet, I'm hoping we win, against the odds.

And in case you're really wondering what I'm saying instead of just trying to make me look like a moron by mischaracterizing what I said, here's what I find to be a common sense notion: if you continually respond in the same predictable way to similar stimuli, people will think they have you figured out, and that they can just manage you and toy with you. The point is that if what you have been doing isn't working, you have to try something else. And that's why there's merit to a disproportionate response. I didn't support it at the time. For one, I didn't see the urgency. But I understand the reasoning, and the rationale I described is the reasoning that I think actually took place.

I think that soon after 9/11 the admin had a discussion about how much of a response was warranted. Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion...it was expected...and widely supported...and there was no reason to expect we wouldn't roll through like a hot knife through butter. No one even blinked.

So I think the admin quickly concluded more was going to be necessary, and looked for the best choice of which to make an example. Iraq was easily the girl with the curl. Prior unprovoked war. Failure to cooperate with the UN. Genocidal dictator.

I definitely don't support how Bush et al marketed the Iraq invasion based on WMD which have not surfaced, and which we may well have had good reason to doubt still existed. That's a disgrace that has cost us overseas. I have only entirely unsubstantiated suspicions about the exact nature of this. But it seems possible that the admin decided that they could sell this story even while privately knowing it was wrong or seriously doubting its accuracy. Maybe they thought that they could get away with it domestically and were willing to bear the cost of foreign credibility lost. They may have even decided that the disproportionate response was so necessary that they had to do it whatever the cost, and so they were better off using a dubious story they thought they could sell instead of being honest and failing to convince people of the merits of disproportionate response. Maybe they were even right about that assessment(moral objections aside of course). After all, I tried to convince you of its merits and you all but called me a fool.

Oh and Carla? In case you missed it, democracy is better than communism. It has something to do with that great stuff called liberty that you spoke so highly of. Unless of course you think the Cubans keep re-electing Castro.

Unless of course you think the Cubans keep re-electing Castro.

Are you implying that Fidel is cheating?

Shame on you.

bk,

I thought that was your reasoning, rather than your interpretation of the administration's reasoning. My apologies. Other than that, I don't see how I mischaracterized your words.

BTW, it reminds of the old line -- reasonable people change themselves to conform to the world, unreasonable people try to change the world instead. Therefore all progress comes from unreasonable people.

Anyway, re Afghanistan -- plenty of people thought we'd have far more trouble in Afghanistan than we did. Not many predicted "hot knife through butter" -- Afghanistan is a dangerous, inhospitable country that had defeated a superpower before. I think the administration isn't getting nearly enough credit for what they accomplished there.

Which leads me to think that maybe Carla has a point about easy success -- perhaps the administration got overconfident because knocking over the Taliban turned out to be so easy.

bk:

Clearly you're the one who missed it.

The point, that is.

It isn't about which system is better or worse. It's about choosing what you want for yourself. That is the essence of liberty.

No, it definitely has a TON to do with which systems are better than others. Many governmental systems, are in actual practice, antithetical to the concept of personal liberty. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, for example. And other systems that juxtapose wonderful rhetoric about the common good of the people but actually function in a restrictive authoritarian fashion.

By your own words, you think it's important for people to choose what they want for themselves. And yet you seem to advocate that governmental systems that do everything in their power to keep people from having this opportunity should be allowed to function without outside interference. That's a very old conservative idea, not a liberal one. I'm astounded that you seem to suggest that the only valid way for a democracy to arise is through some spontaneous internal mechanism of revolution, that some sort of immoral pollution occurs when an existing democracy "interferes."

Carla,

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you advocating that we should convene some sort of convention or plebiscite where the Iraqis would decide what form of government they want? And then leave after that decision is made? I don't necessarily object to that. But what I do object to (and maybe that is not what you are saying) is that we would leave and let the Iraqis sort things out by themselves. To me, that would be irresponsible because, in reality, you are not talking about a choice, you are talking about a civil war in which the strongest group would impose their will on the rest. (Which, obviously, is what Saddam Hussein did.) I think we have some responsibility to insure that we don't leave the country in chaos and without any functioning government. I assume you agree with me on that.

Frankly, however, I think your use of history is wrong. First, there have been periods in the Middle East of liberalism if not pure democracy existed in the Middle East. Second, how you can say they have shunned something that has never been tried? I agree the elites don't want democracy, but that doesn't mean the people don't.

But that's besides the point anyway. I do not believe in crusades to "export" democracy. But I do believe that, given the situation that Iraq is in and our responsibility for it, we have no choice but to try to install some system that allows a voice to the people. If the people want to break up the country, then I agree that that should be their choice. But there has to be some sort of system to facilitate this choice and, to me, that sounds suspiciously like democracy. And, yes, I do think a democratic system (even if only quasi-democratic) is better than the alternatives THAT ARE REALISTICALLY LIKELY.

Be sure no one tells the Turks that democracy is simply not possible in the Middle East. Or the Israelis, for that matter.

Most of the Middle East already has established democratic forms of government right now, from the long-standing parliamentary democracies of Turkey and Israel to the constitutional monarchies of Jordan and Kuwait, and the federal republics of Yemen, UAR, and Pakistan. It is a complete misperception to assume that the region has no experience with democratic forms of government. The theocracy of Iraq and the dictatorships of Syria and Libya are the exception, not the rule.

Next month, the Iraqi people will have the opportunity to choose the representatives who will determine the future of their country. Those people will be Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis, and they will try (and perhaps fail) to come up with an Iraqi government that they can accept. I do not know what course they will choose, or how succesful they will be in the long run. You don't either. But given the situation and the alternatives, they certainly have my whole-hearted support in making the attempt.

Technically isn't Iran a democracy?
The only problem is getting that pesky paperwork approved (with out getting kidnapped and beaten to death before the primaries.)

Technically isn't Iran a democracy?

Nope, it's a theocratic republic, with supreme authority residing in the faqih (chief mullah) via the "Islamic Principles" constitution, and effective rule by the faqih and friends via the military. The faqih has the powers of appointing the jurists to the Council of Guardians; the chief judges of the judicial branch; the chief of staff of the armed forces; the commander of the Pasdaran (Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami, or Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or Revolutionary Guards); the personal representatives of the faqih to the Supreme Defense Council; and the commanders of the army, air force, and navy, following their nomination by the Supreme Defense Council. The faqih also is authorized to approve (or disapprove) all candidates for all elections. In addition, he is empowered to dismiss a president who has been impeached by the Majlis or found by the Supreme Court to be negligent in his duties.

Iran is democratic in the same sense that the Republic of Cuba is democratic.

Yea, I guess your right. I thought I could squeeze them in under a technical definition but I don't see enough wiggle room here.

DEMOCRACY:

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by
the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government
in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but
is indirectly exercised through a system of representation
and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
constitutional representative government; a republic.

WordNet Dictionary
1. [n] the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
2. [n] the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
3. [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

Libya is a democracy.

ROTFLMAO, Todd.

Colonel Qaddafi also held to the conceit that he did not play an official role in governing the country.

"The power is now in the hands of the Libyan people," he said. "Every Libyan, man or woman, exercises the power, every Libyan over 18 of age, man or woman - they all participate in the popular congress and in the people's committees. I do not exercise any power."

Heck, Fidel does get re-elected every four years, as did Uncle Joe Stalin. Just because no one else was on the ballot and voting the entire ballot was mandatory under penalty of law is no reason to not call Cuba a democratic government. :-)

They do have elections in Iran. They just don't mean anything, though I'm sure the faqih claims to rule by the will of the people, which is of course the will of Allah, which is of course the whim of the mullahs. I actually can't think of a single pure national democracy anywhere, which is why I said "democratic forms of government." We don't live in a national democracy, but in a federal republic. And the UK is a constitutional monarchy.

It's strange to think of Saudi Arabia having elections, though, even if they're just for "advisory Council" seats. Last of the real monarchies. But too many princelings running around to stay that way.

Don't forget that Saddam also got 100 percent of the vote in 1992.

The NY Times article about Libya has a bunch of other knee-slappers.

bk:

Again...no it doesn't have to do with which system is better. I'm not questioning which is better or which is worse. I'm questioning the way it's being handled. The Iraqis aren't being allowed to choose what system they want. They're being told which system they'll have. If we're really about liberty..we let them decide what they want. That may mean they screw it up for themselves and go through some pain before they get it right. We certainly know that the US has.

Further I'm not advocating for any system of government for the Iraqis..beyond the one of their own choosing. If they CHOOSE a democracy and they ask us to help them figure out how to get it up and running...then it's appropriate for us to do that.

What we've done in Iraq is much more than interfere and I think you know that. It's dishonest to suggest in any way that this is what we've done. We threw out their old government without their consent and we occupied their country..essentially failing the people by not keeping security and by not getting the infrastructure back up in a timely manner. And now we're installing a system that they didn't agree to as a country and didn't ask for.

And I'm the one being accused of being immoral for thinking that's wrong.

Democracy isn't congruent with liberty in this case..as we're seeing. In order to bring democracy to this nation..we're having to literally murder thousands of Iraqis and torture others. You'll forgive me if I don't see a whole lot of morality there.

Carla;
I think you're basically advocating an anti-war stance. That's fair and reasonable. BUT, just as those who see war as a possible option must address the inevitable loss of civilian life, infrastructure destruction etc, so must the anti-war folks address how to respond to tyranny, genocide etc.

I'm still concerned that some of your stance is based on who started the war (the US, President Bush) than on any principles underlying the conflict.

Marc:

In answer to your first question...yes, basically. I essentially agree with your first paragraph.

Second...let the people decide if they want democracy and they want us to help them get it going.

I don't see how we can install a system and expect it to be adhered to unless we plan to stay there and force adherence. And if we do that...how are we better than Saddam in that regard?

Carla, you implied earlier that genocide was an acceptable reason for military interference. The Kurds of Halabja and neighboring villages want to know what it takes to qualify as intervention-justifying genocide, as the Anfal campaign alone pretty well convinced them they were a Saddam genocide target. The Marsh Arabs are also interested. You may discuss the subject with many of them (and even their Shia and Sunni brethren) in their new dwelling places as described in the glowing real estate brochures found here and here, but don't be surprised if you find the conversation a trifle one-sided.

In any case, we're there. We broke it, we fix it. We don't cut and run. (Reference "moral values," sub-references "non-abdication of clear but unpleasant moral responsibility burden" and "non-abandonment of dependents." Maybe it's just a red-state thing.)

The "push for democratization" as many people have put it has nothing to do with the region. The reason it's failing is that it is highly hypocritical to force democracy on people at the barrel of a gun. Instead the people there are inspired to associate democracy with foreign imperialists setting up a permanent occupying force in their lands, set up puppet governments to rule over them, and torture and rape their neighbors and families. I'm not saying that any of those countries wouldn't do the same thing to us, given the chance, but shouldn't America be better than that? Shouldn't we be leading by example, instead of leading by fear (terror)?

Again...no it doesn't have to do with which system is better. I'm not questioning which is better or which is worse. I'm questioning the way it's being handled. The Iraqis aren't being allowed to choose what system they want. They're being told which system they'll have.

Carla, I don't honestly see how there's any hope for us to communicate further if you think that the issue of which governmental systems are better is irrelevant. I definitely AM questioning that which you are not, and which I'm assuming you are declaring is irrelevant since you think it's OK to set it aside when discussing our current policy.

Maybe it's the case that you simply think that it's wrong to make any such judgements about the merits of a variety of systems and then act on them. That's not what our government's policy is, and I am very glad that's not what it is. IMO, you have to believe some ways are better than others in order to have a rationale for any sort of engagement, whether it be sanctions, embargoes, international policies, police actions, or invasions.

I might be wrong, and correct me if I am, but what I hear you saying is that we should have kept our hands off and waited while a people-determined government might or might not have emerged some day from a brutally repressive and often genocidal dictatorship. And that if it did, good for Iraqis, but if not, that's the way it's supposed to be, that Iraq just couldn't get its shit together, and no matter how much time passes or what bad things happen internally, it's always up to the people of Iraq to get their shit together as long as they don't F%&k with people outside their borders.

Maybe if you can please explain how you think such events might unfold, I'd be better able to understand why you think this is a reasonable position. In the meantime, it seems to me you're stuck with a laissez faire isolationist foreign policy. You sound like a republican from the 70s.

bk:

Where we're parting ways here is you're choosing to emphasize which is the best system. I'm simply not going to engage you on that...because I don't see it as the main thrust of the point.

The point is what the IRAQIS consider to be the best system for themselves and what they are willing to implement and work at.

It's THEIR country. They should decide what THEY WANT. I've already explained how I believe they can do this and what our role should be.

To address Tully's point on the genocide angle....it's interesting how he's trying to paint that as a new reason to invade..when while it was taking place the US was quite chummy with Saddam. It's a pretty disingenous reasoning, to say the least. And further still..I will once again reiterate my stance on "cut and run". We cannot do that.(This would be the fourth time at least I've articulated this position)

Uh huh. Dodge the question, Carla. Impugn the questioner! Blame it on Bush 41, or Reagan, but don't, whatever you do, bother to address the obvious question raised by your own declarations. An honest answer to your own apparently contradictory statements might seem "pretty disingenous," after all.

I asked about your reasoning, Carla. You brought up genocide as a justification for invasion. I didn't paint it as a reason to do anything, just noted the contradiction. (I will note that the campaign against the Marsh Arabs didn't kick into gear until 1991, when the US was certainly NOT "quite chummy with Saddam." Though the US was never at any time as chummy with Saddam as the French were, right up until the regime fell--but all that's a digression.)

I'm still interested in hearing how helping the Iraqis choose by ballot the people who will construct their constitution and government is a horrible and imperialist thing, as compared to, for instance, just turning Saddam loose and telling him "Take it back, it's all yours!"

Which would apparently fit your ideas of a proper government for Iraq. Please enlighten us. Given the situation as is, what would your approach be for letting the Iraqis choose their own government? Run away and let them sort it out themselves? Re-install Saddam and then ask if that was OK by them? Stand on the sidelines and let them just fight it out for themselves, with whatever help the various factions can haul in from Syria and Iran and sundry other cesspools?

It's obvious you reflexively oppose the US presence in Iraq. What alternative do you have? Right now, with the situation as is? Any? How would Carla do it differently?

Uh Tully...genocide IS used a reason for invasion..not by me, my Bush and his supporters. Yet when this genocide was supposed to be taking place...the US government (including Rummy, Cheney and Bush 41) were chummy with Saddam (with the exception of the Marsh Arabs, obviously...but that was still over a decade before we started this current adventure..seems a bit late to the party, dontcha think?)

I'm still waiting to hear why we invaded in the first place. Not the made up reasons...but the REAL one.

I've already explained what I think we should be doing differently, fyi.

Carla, I can't agree that you've explained your position. You've decribed some generalities, but you haven't explained your position in any detail as it relates to the details of current circumstances.

I've never heard from you anything approaching a persuasive argument why helping the Iraqis choose by ballot the people who will construct their constitution and government is a horrible and imperialist thing. You just keep repeating that it's THEIR country, job, responsibility, etc. But you can't explain how they were supposed to reach this promised land from their pre-invasion circumstances, nor have you explained why our providing a format for an election is contrary to your repeated assertions that it's THEIR country, job, responsibility, etc.

That's the thing you keep repeating, and it's the only thing about what you say that I agree with. After that, I lose you. Anyone rational realizes that the idea of invading and trying to then gradually impose a democracy includes elements of catch-22, a paradox. I recognize this, and I am sure most or many others do as well. But you're hanging your horns on the dilemma while pretending there is no dilemma. If you were willing to admit that this was a dilemma, a problem with only imperfect solution options, we could have a decent discussion, but no, you have to take the hard case of implying that the solution to the dilemma is the laissez-faire route. Then you evade any questions that require a defense of this position. That's intellectually dishonest. At least recognize the dilemma for god's sake. And explain why you think the laissez -faire route would have been superior.

Of course, I can call it in advance that you'll now deny that you think our policy should have been laissez-faire. Maybe you'll even hide behind the pretense that if we had gone through channels, the UN/international community could have gotten 'er done. Give us some more vague Kerryesque nuancing which leaves us all unsure where you stand. It's a sure path to 48%.

They need to choose the style of government THEY want...but I do think that for us to leave having not installed a successful democracy will be a very good lesson for future US Presidents. That lesson would be allowing citizens of a country to choose their own style of government..and not forcing them to adopt ours...That's not to say we couldn't assist the people in that region to bring about the style of government they envision for themselves...It's not about not helping nations when there's a problem (like genocide for example)...the only way democracy works is if people want it and are willing to work for it. We've got no indication that the Iraqis want this...and we have plenty of indication that they don't...the argument about what to do is over. I strongly disagree. We have a choice here to allow Iraqis to come together and agree on the system they want...And this idea that they show up to the polls to pick their style of government isn't what I condone either. Regions should decide what they want....send people to represent each region to a chosen location..and let them come together and decide what to do...

Those are your words, aren't they? Other than that last bolded bit, I don't see a single damn thing in there that constitutes a plan, and that last is essentially exactly what we're doing. The people of Iraq will be choosing those who will represent their areas. These people will form a constitutional convention, and they (Iraqis chosen by their regions) will draw up the new Iraqi constitution, and they will present that proposal to the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people will decide if it's what they want, or if the CC should go back to the drawing board.

I don't see any plan in what you've said here, other than the same one that's currently in place. I've read the interim constitution. There's absolutely nothing in it to prevent the CC aka National Assembly from doing whatever they want in drawing up the new government. Is it your assertion that the Iraqi people electing representatives of their own choice from their own regions to get together and collectively decide on what kind of government they want, with the Iraqi populace holding the right of veto over whatver proposal they come up with, is NOT a legitimate way to let them "choose" a government? Would you care to explain how the Iraqi people are supposed to "choose" a government without any semblence of voting or democracy involved in the process? Is force of arms your preferred method of "voting?"

You see, the closest thing you've presented to a Carla Plan is pretty much what's going on, but you're against it. I don't see that you've proposed anything different, just wished for failure, or wished for something other than the Iraqi people choosing their own destiny.

And yes, you brought up genocide as a positive reason for "helping" nations with a "genocide problem." There's a bit of a contradiction there. Genocide was occurring in Iraq, yet you don't say why that was not a legitimate reason to intervene in Iraq but would be elsewhere. You're still dodging that question.

Given the situation as is, what's the Carla Plan? Not rhetorical generalities, but specifics. How would it differ from the current plan?

bk:

Did the Iraqis decide they wanted a Constitution? Why are they having one? Who decided this? Who decided that their current system of laws is inadequate? Why? Who picked the interim government? Who is setting up the elections? Who is counting the votes? (The UN certainly isn't providing the manpower to do it due to lack of security). Who decides if the elections are legitimate and fair?

The Iraqis wouldn't have reached a "promised land" in the preinvasion era because of Hussein, obviously. But it's more complex than that. Hussein was holding the country together with an iron fist. There are massive ethnic and religious tensions that were kept squelched by Hussein. The thing you keep ignoring is that there's a good chance they'll be civil war over there even with an election that we contrive and cobble together for them..which is exactly what's being done. This is a very profound mess.

The bottom line is that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. But we did. And then we occupied the country...badly. And then established an interim government with people who torture Iraqis (Allawi). Nowhere in this process did the people of Iraq make a single decision about how their country was to move forward. Now an election is being held and we're being told that they'll be establishing a democracy. Are you somehow of the belief that in the end...this won't be what is forced on these people? Every single other line item in this misadventure has been done that way. This will be no different. The best indicator of future events is history.

My position (again) is that these people should decide their own system of government. They should decide if they want a Constitution or not. They should decide if they even want to remain a united country or not. Hell...they didn't even choose their election format.

And Tully..what you bolded from me is NOT what they're doing. They're having an election to elect a leader and some sort of South African style parliament, apparently (and ever third name on the ballot must be a woman, as I understand it).

I would not have invaded Iraq in the first place. That's the major error here that can't be undone, unfortunately. And frankly the fact that you think they're not going to be forced into democracy like it or not is silly and naive.

In terms of the genocide issue...it's you who are in conflict. If we'd invaded when we knew Saddam was committing the genocide and that was the reason for the invasion..that might be legit. But obviously it isn't. We didn't invade Iraq to end genocide that was occuring. To make so clear that you can understand it...we didn't invade Iraq to end genocide that was occuring when we invaded, thus attempting to use genocide to justify invasion is illegitimate.