Bush: 'It's in our interest that Iraq succeed' (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Standing with back straight, head held high, eyes looking foward President Bush was a posing a great Kodak moment, a great photo-op to be precise! Only thing overdone was that silly grin, that smile that seem plastered to his face, it seemed gay to me, anyone else notice?

Well anyway, Bush and his handlers did not waste anytime getting out that PHOTO-OP to the main-stream media. They excel at that.







http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-13-bush_x.htm

BAGHDAD (AP) — President Bush assured Iraqis in a surprise visit to Baghdad on Tuesday that the United States stands with them and their new government. "It's in our interest that Iraq succeed," he said, seated alongside newly named Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
But he also emphasized, both in his meeting with al-Maliki and in an address to U.S. troops, that the wartorn country's future is in the hands of the new Iraqi unity government.

"And our job is to help them succeed and we will," Bush told American forces as he wrapped up his unannounced visit.

The dramatic trip came as Bush sought to bolster support for Iraq's fledgling government and U.S. war policy at home.

 

[aps]

Gag me with a friggen spoon. :roll:

 

[Kandahar]

It's in our interest that Iraq has a stable government. But it's not in our interest to try to stabilize it for them, nor is it in our interest to encourage democracy in Iraq.

 

[MSgt]

......and the usual suspects chime in their criticisms.:roll:

 

[Captain America]

How we got into Iraq, justified or not, will be debate fodder for years to come.

But the fact remains that were are there. I don't see any other option but to stay the course at this point.

 

[oldreliable67]

But it's not in our interest to try to stabilize it for them, nor is it in our interest to encourage democracy in Iraq.

It is very much in our interest for Iraq to have a stable government, consequently it is very much in our interest to assist them in their stabilization efforts. It is also very much in our interest to encourage representative forms of government in Iraq and other countries in the ME.

 

[Iriemon]

It is very much in our interest for Iraq to have a stable government, consequently it is very much in our interest to assist them in their stabilization efforts. It is also very much in our interest to encourage representative forms of government in Iraq and other countries in the ME.

I agree with that.

On the other hand, it is not in our interest to be seen as starting wars on false pretexts, wrongly invading muslem countries, killing muslems daily, and an indefinite occupation of their country to prop up a government that the people won't support. These acts serve only to inflame Muslems further against us, and support the very people we should be trying to isolate.

A democratic Iraq would be great. But it would not be the end-all of the struggle against anti-American radical Islam, and it is questionable to me whether it would accomplish anything towards that end.

 

[ShamMol]

It is in our best interest that we have a stable Middle East, and how Bush is going around to do that is not necessarily correct.

 

[Kandahar]

It is very much in our interest for Iraq to have a stable government, consequently it is very much in our interest to assist them in their stabilization efforts.

That conclusion does not follow from that premise.

It is also very much in our interest to encourage representative forms of government in Iraq and other countries in the ME.

Why?

 

[oldreliable67]

It is in our best interest that we have a stable Middle East, and how Bush is going around to do that is not necessarily correct.

Perhaps the key issue in the ME is Israel and Palestine. Decades of previous efforts produced damned little in this regard. Bush's efforts have done more than anything or anyone else thus far to get the Israeli - Palestinian situation moving toward peace. Far from complete, yes. But there is at least now some movement.

 

[oldreliable67]

That conclusion does not follow from that premise.

Why does it not?

Why?

Surely you jest?

 

[ShamMol]

Perhaps the key issue in the ME is Israel and Palestine. Decades of previous efforts produced damned little in this regard. Bush's efforts have done more than anything or anyone else thus far to get the Israeli - Palestinian situation moving toward peace. Far from complete, yes. But there is at least now some movement.

Oh I agree that it is the main issue, but I also feel that the most action is happening in Iraq right now and that is where we most focus our efforts if we want it to suceed into a stable area once again.

 

[LogicalReason]

I agree with that.

On the other hand, it is not in our interest to be seen as starting wars on false pretexts, wrongly invading muslem countries, killing muslems daily, and an indefinite occupation of their country to prop up a government that the people won't support. These acts serve only to inflame Muslems further against us, and support the very people we should be trying to isolate.

Very valid points, except for a few not so valid parts. But are you saying that because we invaded Iraq on 'false pretexts' that we shouldn't want it to stabilize and that it wouldn't be in our interest if it did?

A democratic Iraq would be great. But it would not be the end-all of the struggle against anti-American radical Islam, and it is questionable to me whether it would accomplish anything towards that end.

Im going to guess that having a stable Iraq would do more to end anti-American radical Islam than not having one would do.

 

[Iriemon]

Very valid points, except for a few not so valid parts. But are you saying that because we invaded Iraq on 'false pretexts' that we shouldn't want it to stabilize and that it wouldn't be in our interest if it did?

My point goes to credibility and how our action in Iraq is assessed by the Muslem world -- and that is the audience if our goal is to influence the region by what we are doing in Iraq.

A democratic government is great, but the end goal is blurred by the means of accomplishing it. To the end our invasion of Iraq, is credibly perceived as being illegitimate, and to the end our indefinite occupation there is seen to be an American power grab, then our efforts to "stabilize" Iraq - ie establish a democratic government that is seen by 1) the Iraqis and 2) the rest of the Muslem world as a legitimate government are severly undermined. This effort is furhter undermined, IMO, but what is at this point an indefinite committment of American troops in Iraq, which will just be viewed as propping up an illegitimate government that could otherwise not stand. It becomes a vicious cycle -- we say we won't leave because the Iraqi government cannot "stand up" on its own, and as long as we say we are staying there the greater the resentment and resolve of the forces arrayed against what is viewed as an illegitimate occupation, and the more our enemy -- radical Islam, can say with persuasion that the US, contrary to its stated goal -- is interested in controlling their oil, suppressing their religion, and controlling their countries.

Im going to guess that having a stable Iraq would do more to end anti-American radical Islam than not having one would do.

I'm not so sure about this. In the first instance, Hussein was not a radical Islamic leader (at least relative to other leaders in the region) so it was a gamble that Hussein would be replaced by something better. Second, I question how valid the democracy domino theory is. Every nation is different, and the question about how much influence one has over the other is certainly questionable. Turkey, for example, has been a democractic nation for decades, and borders Iraq, but seems to have had little influence in producing a democratic movement there. Also, if the new Iraqi government is seen as little more than an American puppet, I question how much political influence it would have in the region. It is possible that it could create greater anti-US resentment in the region than there is now, if that is possible.

 

[Kandahar]

Why does it not?

Because American power is not infinite. While it's in our interest to have a stable Iraq, it is not SO MUCH in our interests that it's worth babysitting an insurgency while their government is stuck in neutral. Iraq is not the only international situation that requires a commitment of American power.

Surely you jest?

No. We've seen what democracy brings about in the Arab world. Why on earth would we want to encourage that?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Bush's efforts have done more than anything or anyone else thus far to get the Israeli - Palestinian situation moving toward peace.

Huh? What has Bush done to secure peace between Israel and Palestine? I haven't seen him do very much at all about that situation, let alone "more than anything or anyone else thus far."

 

[oldreliable67]

Because American power is not infinite. While it's in our interest to have a stable Iraq, it is not SO MUCH in our interests that it's worth babysitting an insurgency while their government is stuck in neutral. Iraq is not the only international situation that requires a commitment of American power.

"babysitting an insurgency while their government is stuck in neutral" seem strange characterizations of the situation in Iraq. Granted, we would all prefer the Iraqi government to speed up the process, but it is not static, it is moving and making progress. Hardly 'stuck in neutral', IMO.

No. We've seen what democracy brings about in the Arab world. Why on earth would we want to encourage that?

What Arab countries would you cite as examples?

 

[Binary_Digit]

No. We've seen what democracy brings about in the Arab world. Why on earth would we want to encourage that?

What we have seen is a response to their perception of democracy as having the right to do the "wrong" thing, and that false perception comes from tyranical governments hell-bent on enforcing their extreme right-wing ideology on the ignorant masses.

 

[jujuman13]

Certainly the impetus to give Iraq a democratically elected Government is having an effect on the governments of other M.E. Nations, namely Kuwaiit, Jordon, Saudi Arabia who are slowly (oh so slowly) but steadily promulgating a more democratic stream of thought in their own administrations.

quote:
Perhaps the key issue in the ME is Israel and Palestine. Decades of previous efforts produced damned little in this regard. Bush's efforts have done more than anything or anyone else thus far to get the Israeli - Palestinian situation moving toward peace. Far from complete, yes. But there is at least now some movement.

I do not see much movement along the so called "Road map to peace", somehow it seems to have hit a roadblock!

 

[Kandahar]

"babysitting an insurgency while their government is stuck in neutral" seem strange characterizations of the situation in Iraq. Granted, we would all prefer the Iraqi government to speed up the process, but it is not static, it is moving and making progress. Hardly 'stuck in neutral', IMO.

Maybe it's making a little progress, but not nearly enough. If we don't lower our expectations, there's no way our troops can get out of Iraq for at least 5-10 years (if ever). That's simply too long for us to commit such a massive amount of American power, for a country that is at best a peripheral interest to America.

What Arab countries would you cite as examples?

Palestine elected Hamas. Lebanon elected Hizbollah. Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood in all of the seats they contested. Algeria voted in Islamic extremists, before the US fortunately reneged and allowed the dictatorship to refuse to turn over power. The Saudi municipal elections (along with the mindset of the Saudi people) suggest that a nationwide election in Saudi Arabia would elect a government resembling the Taliban.

 

[Kandahar]

What we have seen is a response to their perception of democracy as having the right to do the "wrong" thing, and that false perception comes from tyranical governments hell-bent on enforcing their extreme right-wing ideology on the ignorant masses.

It may seem like extreme right-wing ideology from an American perspective, but most of the Arab dictators are quite warm and fuzzy compared to the Arab democrats. As you correctly pointed out, the masses are ignorant. So why should they be given a voice in their nation's decisions? Perhaps if they were educated first, they could have a democracy in several decades. But that's a long time off and we certainly don't need to be encouraging democratic reforms in the Middle East now.

There are very few Arab countries that would have more freedom under a democracy than they have under a dictatorship. If Saudi Arabia and Egypt are extreme right-wing governments, they encounter most of their opposition from the extreme-extreme-right-wing.

 

[Kelzie]

It may seem like extreme right-wing ideology from an American perspective, but most of the Arab dictators are quite warm and fuzzy compared to the Arab democrats. As you correctly pointed out, the masses are ignorant. So why should they be given a voice in their nation's decisions? Perhaps if they were educated first, they could have a democracy in several decades. But that's a long time off and we certainly don't need to be encouraging democratic reforms in the Middle East now.

There are very few Arab countries that would have more freedom under a democracy than they have under a dictatorship. If Saudi Arabia and Egypt are extreme right-wing governments, they encounter most of their opposition from the extreme-extreme-right-wing.

Ah the "they're not ready for democracy" argument. It's a good one. Very comfortable and it easily explains why democracy isn't working somewhere. It's kinda an odd concept when you think about it though. It seems to me that it completely undermines the notion of democracy itself. Democracy is so wonderful because it is for everyone. Because everyone is supposed to have a voice. The "they're not ready for democracy" argument has been used before, quite often actually. They said that about blacks. They said it about women. And the moments in our history that shine out as a time of social progress was when we've tossed out our bigotries against others. When we decided that some people weren't more able to govern themselves than others. It wasn't when we decided that some group was "now ready." It's when we came to the realization that the argument was incorrect in the first place.

 

[Kandahar]

Ah the "they're not ready for democracy" argument. It's a good one. Very comfortable and it easily explains why democracy isn't working somewhere. It's kinda an odd concept when you think about it though. It seems to me that it completely undermines the notion of democracy itself. Democracy is so wonderful because it is for everyone. Because everyone is supposed to have a voice. The "they're not ready for democracy" argument has been used before, quite often actually. They said that about blacks. They said it about women. And the moments in our history that shine out as a time of social progress was when we've tossed out our bigotries against others. When we decided that some people weren't more able to govern themselves than others. It wasn't when we decided that some group was "now ready." It's when we came to the realization that the argument was incorrect in the first place.

I disagree with the premise that "democracy is so wonderful because it is for everyone." Just because democracy generally works well in the United States does not mean that it will work well everywhere. The main purposes of democracy, as far as I'm concerned are (1) to protect liberty, (2) to hold corrupt government accountable, and (3) to iron out the "gray areas" of law (such as how much pollution should be regulated, how much we should spend on the military, what age people must be to drive, etc).

If democracy fails to do (1) and only focuses on (2) and (3), then it has failed as far as I'm concerned. Democracy isn't an inherent good in itself, but rather as a means to maximize liberty. If the people are more likely than a dictator to take away their neighbor's freedom, what purpose does democracy serve? I don't see the wisdom of having ten million ignorant anti-liberty voices in government, as opposed to a hundred relatively-educated voices that allow the people MORE liberty than they'd allow themselves.

I don't think the analogy to American blacks/women not being ready for democracy is valid. Democracy enhanced their rights, whereas democracy in the Arab world would reduce citizens' rights. If American women in 1920 were calling for laws prohibiting women from handling money, and calling for the beheading/stoning of any woman committing adultery, then I would agree that they probably shouldn't have the right to vote.

 

[MSgt]

Maybe it's making a little progress, but not nearly enough. If we don't lower our expectations, there's no way our troops can get out of Iraq for at least 5-10 years (if ever). That's simply too long for us to commit such a massive amount of American power, for a country that is at best a peripheral interest to America.

WWII ended over 60 years ago. Yet, more than 100,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Germany and Japan. Smaller groups are arrayed throughout Europe at NATO or U.S. bases in Italy, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, and Portugal. The Korean truce was signed in 1953. But South Korea is still host to roughly 35,000 U.S. troops. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was halted in 1991. Nearly 40,000 U.S. Troops are still there. Seven years after a peace accord was reached in Kosovo, 1500 U.S. troops are still there as peacekeepers.

Troops deployed in foreign lands for a prolonged period of time is not something new.

Palestine elected Hamas. Lebanon elected Hizbollah. Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood in all of the seats they contested. Algeria voted in Islamic extremists, before the US fortunately reneged and allowed the dictatorship to refuse to turn over power. The Saudi municipal elections (along with the mindset of the Saudi people) suggest that a nationwide election in Saudi Arabia would elect a government resembling the Taliban.

.....so? This was all predicted in great works of literature, well before our involvement in Iraq. There was an unpopular theory thrown around in the early 90's that one day the Radicals of Islam would soon figure out that, with the growing desention of their populations about dominate Islamic rule, democracy would be the tool needed to continue dominance over their masses. We have seen this theory realized. Hamas used democracy to get power. The Mullahs in Iran fixed democracy to get Ahmadinejad elected.
With terror as their tool, who will deny their Radicals their vote? When the Mullahs have blood on their hands, they know what they're doing.

Culture is fate. They are what they are. This recognization that Democracy is the inevitable future, even for the Middle East, is logical. So is their quickness to distort it to shape it in such a manner that it would continue to allow them control. We will never see the Democracy that we would like to see in the Middle East, but democracy none the less. True democracy, in any form, ensures the people's voice. Today, their voice is to cheer for martyrs and their finaciers as they endure rigged elections. Tomorrow, it may be different. This is the beauty of Democracy. It must start somewhere and it grows from there.

Why is the current state such a bad thing anyway? Think about it like this.... The next time we have another 9/11 (and it will happen) we can actually blame a government instead of listening to the mindless dribble of the ignorant masses in the West that our attackers were just "rogues" of Islam. I believe the Radical sentiment that has been turned up so easily from the bottom of the barrel proves that we are, indeed, up against an entire failing civilization that needs us more as a scapegoat than a friend.

 

[Kelzie]

I disagree with the premise that "democracy is so wonderful because it is for everyone." Just because democracy generally works well in the United States does not mean that it will work well everywhere. The main purposes of democracy, as far as I'm concerned are (1) to protect liberty, (2) to hold corrupt government accountable, and (3) to iron out the "gray areas" of law (such as how much pollution should be regulated, how much we should spend on the military, what age people must be to drive, etc).

The problems with your "purposes of democracy" is that none of them are unique to a democratic system. An authoritarian system could easily implement procedure to address all three. In a state such as that, democracy would have no purpose, correct?

I would add a different purpose to your list. Self-governence. I believe that it is a natural right of humans to have a say in how their government is run.

If democracy fails to do (1) and only focuses on (2) and (3), then it has failed as far as I'm concerned. Democracy isn't an inherent good in itself, but rather as a means to maximize liberty. If the people are more likely than a dictator to take away their neighbor's freedom, what purpose does democracy serve? I don't see the wisdom of having ten million ignorant anti-liberty voices in government, as opposed to a hundred relatively-educated voices that allow the people MORE liberty than they'd allow themselves.

I see. So should we start some sort of test in this country before people can vote? Do the ignorant have less of a right to decide on their government than the educated? What about the people that want to ban all guns? Is their anti-liberty opinion less valuable than a gun nut's opinion?

It took us hundreds of years in this country to get democracy right. We used it for quite a while to keep minorities down. It's not easy to get it right, democracy is messy and full of arguments. But we can't expect people to get it right immediately. Eastern Europe used to be the black sheep of democracy. People were saying the same thing: "they're not ready." They elected the Communists back to power, then extreme nationalists. Parties never stayed in government for more than one term, let alone in power. But 20 years later, they're getting it.

Democracy should not be denied to people because they are not perceived to be ready. They have to learn sometime. Waiting won't make it any less shaky at the beginning, however it very well might cement the mentality in that democracy won't work for them. And that's not what we want people to be thinking.

And for the record, I do not think Palestine is an example that democracy has failed. The people did not vote for violence or oppression. They voted for social programs and schools and anti-corruption. Give em a break.

I don't think the analogy to American blacks/women not being ready for democracy is valid. Democracy enhanced their rights, whereas democracy in the Arab world would reduce citizens' rights.

However, the white men at the time were afraid that allowing these groups to vote would limit their freedom because of black's or women's incompetence or ignorance. Obviously this didn't happen.