I think it’s probably good news that the Iraq constitution has passed, and I’m really glad it seems to have come off relatively peacefully. I have to give the Bush Administration some credit for actually pursuing this path so vigorously. (I hope the vigor was also matched by intellectual and constitutional rigor).
And although a democratic election is good news, I’m not sure the constitution passing is great news. My hesitation seeps from a couple of sources.
1. Democracy doesn’t necessarily mean liberty
Just having the right to vote and a population that exercises it doesn’t mean that you automatically get what non-ideological people might call “liberal democracy” – that is one that protects minority interests, free speech, freedom of religion and is tolerant and peaceful. Iran is a democracy after all, and that hasn’t prevented them from running a potentially dangerous, theocratic state. Nazi Germany started off democratic. Democracy is only the means by some decisions are made and leaders are elected. It doesn’t mean that we’ll like the decisions or the leaders.
2. What’s in that constitution anyway?
As I understand it, there were some last-minute changes. And some weeks ago, people were pretty upset about the way that women’s roles were dealt with in the constitution. Maybe it’s a good thing the constitution has passed, but is it a good constitution?
3. Security is still a mess
It’s hard to truly live in a democratic state, when you can’t exercise the free speech, women can’t walk around without being covered up for fear of being beaten or in some parts of Iraq, people can’t even exercise the freedom to visit the local market without getting blown up.
And I guess my “excitement” over the constitution is blunted by the war the war is going generally. I was equivocal about the war to begin with. I trusted that the Bush Administration had a plan (silly me!). But I was reasonably convinced that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” – i.e. chemical and biological weapons and conventional weapons banned under UN Security mandates. Colin Powell said so, and Saddam sure acted like he had them. And I knew very well that Saddam Hussein and the Bathists were a bad bunch, a despicably bad bunch, so it didn’t grieve me any to see them go. It was, however, clear in my mind that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I knew that he had little in common with Osama Bin Laden, but I didn’t put it past Saddam to make the connection if he thought it might benefit him in some way down the line.
I’m no longer clear that we ever went to Iraq for the right reasons. In fact, I’m pretty sure we didn’t. But what’s even more upsetting is the way that this war is being run. I’m no military strategist, but I don’t think we ever went with enough troop strength or hardware to occupy a volatile area, and that’s probably resulted in more American, UK and Iraqi deaths than ever needed to be even if this were a justified venture.
The best news from Iraq
The best news recently, though is that the Tennessee based 278th National Guard unit is coming home. Congratulations to those going home and to their families. I wish you all could have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yep, Vol Abroad, I think a LOT of Americans were persuaded by the twisted intelligence reports and a case of too much trust. Now that we've got multiple indictments in Plamegate, apparent cronyism in a Supreme Court nomination, and a shameful response to Hurricane Katrina, there are lots of people here in Knoxville wishing they'd voted otherwise. The Victoir Lieurance family is now anti-Iraq and pro-Cindy Sheehan. I hope we can get a good Dem in the White House in 08.
Post a Comment