The invasion of Iraq was supposed to create a stable, prosperous democracy that would serve as a beacon of hope to the Middle East. Now it's neither stable nor prosperous, and possibly it won't be a democracy, either.
It's certainly failed as a beacon, except one of despair. Instead it's an endless fountain of refugees who are fleeing the miraculous success of the surge. It was also supposed to create a strong ally in the War On Terror, but the Iraqi government is instead moving closer to Iran. The surge has also created "good" terrorists, those who side with our forces while carrying out their terrorist activities, so it's far from clear how this is an improvement in the War On Terror. Somehow converting terrorists over to 'our side' has become the mission, not rooting out and destroying terrorism itself.
story from the Daily Telegraph:
Iraq: Democracy is not essential, says the US
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 9:31am BST 24/08/2007
Disillusion with Iraq's elected leaders has forced President George W Bush's senior advisers to contemplate a future without democracy - a goal that was at the heart of the rationale for the US-led invasion.
Frontline generals in Iraq spoke openly yesterday of the need to have a government that could function and guarantee security above all else, including democratic legitimacy.
Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that "democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future".
Maj Gen Benjamin Mixon, the commander of Task Force Lightning, which has played a central role in the new "surge" strategy, said: "That is the $50,000 question - what will this government look like? Will it be a democracy? Will it not?"
Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus, the senior US commander in Iraq, said in a statement that they were "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset", though they insisted that they were committed to preserving Iraq's democratic institutions.
Their comments could be seen as straight-talking from those facing the daily realities of Iraq on the ground, but may signal a shift soon by the administration away from the holy grail of establishing a fully-functioning, multi-party, multi-ethnic government.
They contradicted the bullish rhetoric of Mr Bush, who in a speech this week cited the enthusiasm shown by Iraqis for voting as justification for a prolonged US presence there.
Iraqis have turned out in large numbers for several polls since the 2003 invasion that overthrew Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the last of which elected the first popular government for 50 years.
The performance of the Shia prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet has however exasperated Washington and led to calls by influential senators, including Hillary Clinton, likely to be the Democrat presidential contender next year, for their removal, albeit by democratic means.
Mr Bush expressed his displeasure with his Iraqi ally on Tuesday, saying "clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more". He rowed back on his comments the following day, after they were seen as calling for a change of leadership.
A National Intelligence Assessment released last night expressed deep doubts that Mr Maliki could overcome sectarian divisions within parliament and meet benchmarks intended to promote political unity, such as a deal on distributing oil revenues.
0 comments:
Post a Comment