Appointing a Government in Iraq
As someone who was opposed to the most recent invasion of
Iraq, I've been watching its aftermath with interest, to see
if I was right. This is the way in which I try to be
open-minded; continuously re-evaluating my opinions and
beliefs in light of what seem to be facts; trying to
recognize, as The Dude might say, when my thinking about
this case has become very uptight.
Many people "on my side" of this line in the sand have said
that although they were initially opposed to the invasion,
they are now glad to see the Iraqi people liberated and safe
from the murderous threat of Saddam Hussein. This is a very
pragmatic position. I'd like to agree with it. Watching the
way things are developing, however, I am beginning to
believe that this may only be a temporary respite for the
Iraqi people. Democracy is probably a good thing. But we
don't have democracy here in the United States, and we're
not building it over there in Iraq.
I think many people are under the impression that we are
organizing elections in Iraq, so that the Iraqi people can
choose their own leaders. This is not the case. This week,
we appointed a twenty-five member group to run the
country. We being the United States military. Many of these
people have not lived in Iraq for a number of years. They
were appointed because of their affiliation with various
exile groups.
People have also been kicked out of the new club due to
their religious affiliations. It is ironic that the United
States government, which was founded by people seeking to
escape religious persecution and eliminate religious
discrimination, has now imposed a government on another
country using religion as a criterion for who may and may
not hold office.
The people appointed have been appointed because their
position at the intersection of various characteristics has
brought them to the attention of the powers-that-be. Money
and status are an important part of this profile, making
this a new class of elites, something else that our own
founders were opposed to.
The idea that we are now handing freedom to Iraqis in the
form of democracy is thus a complete charade. We may do a
better job of keeping them alive than Hussein did, but we
show no intentions of allowing them to vote for, or more
importantly, to _be_ their own leaders.
Do the benefits of staying alive outweigh this? Quite
possibly. The question is who gets to make that
decision. The people who founded the first United States
government made the opposite decision; that freedoms were
worth dying for. In the context of this history, we should
not be so paternalistic as to assume that because we have
eliminated one scourge, what we are now doing is
automatically right.
Here, people won't even tolerate having school board
officials appointed by the state. So how can we stomach the
appointment and imposition of a new Iraqi government?
Stay tuned for future profiles of who has been chosen to run
the Iraq government. I can't claim any insider information,
this is no drudgery report, but I'll collect all of the
details that I can. Leave any relevant tips here in the
comment box.
Not the smoothest silk in the drawer,
John
|
