What is the value of letting people make the wrong decision?
This is the question Diana West asks in her latest article. The recent Iraqi Elections showed strong gains for the United Iraqi Alliance, a party with close ties to the Shi'ite state of Iran. This is obviously disturbing on a couple of different levels. For one, if we liberate Iraq and they ally with Iran, how much of a victory is that? For another, the debate of imposing sharia will tilt towards imposing those rules. Which means at least half of Iraq will lose some freedoms.
All of which is why I beg to differ when the president says, "the terrorists know that democracy is their enemy." From the PA, where sharia-supporting terrorists are winning primaries, to Egypt, where sharia-supporting terror-ideologues are being elected, to Iraq, where sharia-supporting terror-state-allies are being elected, democracy is not their enemy. It is vox populi. And just because the people have spoken doesn't mean we should applaud what they say.We don't have to applaud it, but do we have to respect it?
Anyway it's an interesting puzzle, and not one I have an immediate answer to. I'm tempted to suggest that the Republicans wanted this war and now have to live with the results; but that's not a very positive way of looking at it. So I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment