Okay, so I was a little sarcastic with the title. After hearing about today's development in Iraq where the Shites and Kurds are supporting a constitutional draft, but the Shites are protesting, claiming their needs are not being met.
My dad was right, Iraq was never a country. Three ethnic groups being forced to live together as one happy family doesn't work. Saddam was able to rule by brutal suppression. Once Saddam was gone, we promised everyone freedom and liberty. This just opened the hostilities each group has against the others to open aggression against one another because they are no longer being suppressed.
Okay, assuming this parliment bends its own guildelines and approves this constitution for the election in October, what are the odds that the constitution will fail in election? I'm sorry to say that this country has shed so many hundreds of millions of dollars and the blood of almost 2,000 to have the constitution fail in an election is not acceptable. We're in a "failure is not an option" mentality. So I wouldn't be suprised if the election shows an overwhleming approval for the constitution. After all, there were stories during the parlimentary election of American influence for certain candidates.
I have to question the President's motivations for this conflict. If he understood the history of the creation of the country of Iraq, he should have questioned wether or not the different ethinc groups could get along together for a goal of a democratic nation (when one group has expressed a pro-Iranian philosophy). Okay, so the belief that dangling democracy on a stick would make everyone in Iraq follow is out. That means we risk the perception of forcing democracy on the people of Iraq, subjecting the population to a colony of America.
The other argument is that Saddam had to go because he's a brutal dictator. My dad is right - if Saddam would start promoting democracy, he would be the leader of the government, and we would look the other way while control was reinstated in Iraq (by brutal suppression of protestors). Any leader in Iraq would need the support of America, because he would need the support of troops to regain control. The parlimentary government talks about regaining control over the insurgent attacks throughout Iraq, but that can only be done with suppression and violence.
Why are the insurgents allowed to have such an influence over events in Iraq when innocent civilians are dying every day, their oil, water, and electricity services are constantly disrupted. Simple - when troops arrive in a town looking for insurgents, they seek assistance from civilians to find them hiding in plain sight. If someone turns in insurgents hiding in their town, retribution will come swiftly as soon as the troops leave. So the question is - why can't the troops stay to prevent retribution attacks? Because there are not enough to stay to maintain order and prevent further inflitration by insurgents.
I don't know a lot about Vietnam, I was born the year after we left Saigon. But troops were sent in to fight guerilla fighters, clear a village or town, and leave because there are not enough troops to prevent guerillas from re-inflitrating a village or town. We couldn't win a war that way, and we cannot win the war in Iraq with the same philosophy.
I have a nightmare scenario in my head that there will be protests after the constitutional election when it will win. There will be not enough troops to control such protests, and we will have be confined to their bases. Sending 1,500 more troops for the election are only a drop in the bottom of the bucket that will not be enough to cover Iraq.
So, if there is not enough popular support for the constitution, we lose. If we ensure the election will be in favor of the constituion, we lose. I will be watching the events in Iraq, and hoping that I'm wrong. But please make me wrong by a democratic movement, not a forced democratic movement.
