Well our occupation of Iraq might not be easy, accoding to Paul Kennedy.
"Will the American artificers of change do better in today's Middle East? Perhaps. But the odds are not good. Even if the United States manages to impose order in the next few weeks or months, it has embarked on a difficult and dangerous enterprise. The region is still criss-crossed with rivalries and blood feuds between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Conservative sheiks sit uneasily upon their precarious thrones. The Kurds and other minorities are bursting to get free. Hatred of Israel is intense, and constantly inflamed by the media and the clerics. The city streets are full of unemployed, restless young men, and the populations of the Muslim world are still soaring. Bringing "democracy" to the Middle East -- if that simply means one person, one vote -- could easily produce majority mistreatment of minorities. Anyone who has read the Arab Human Development Report put out last year by the U.N. Development Program can only be depressed by its unflinching account of undemocratic governance, corruption, economic failures and dire social needs. Were a British administrator from the 1920s restored to life, he would find things all too familiar."
It is right and proper to be aware of the problems rebuilding Iraq and to have a proper assessment of the effect our efforts may have on the rest of the Middle East. But I think it is also important to balance that with a view of what we want to accomplish. A free and liberated Iraq, functioning as a just democracy could change the trend of the middle east towards a future in which Democratic ideals and individual liberties coexist with the Muslim Faith. We may fail at this attempt, but it is worth trying.
The other question, is, at this point, what exactly are supposed to do? Get out and let the Kurds, the Shi'ite Muslims, and the Sunni Muslims get back to the business of bicking on each other?
No comments:
Post a Comment