So We Want More Mid East Democracies?
One cannot but hope for the best for the Iraqi people. They have suffered from 'occupations' throughout their modern history -- the British, Saddam Hussein's, and now that of the U.S.
As I heard the BBC reports this morning from a wide variety of spokespersons -- both pro and con the election -- what came through loud and clear is that the vast majority of Iraqis (70% of the Sunnis, 60% of the Shiites) want the occupiers (us) out of there. Only the Kurds favor our presence for obvious reasons -- they don't want to be suppressed again either by a dominant Iraqi government or by the Turks.
But let us ponder Pandora out of the box.
What will happen if the surrounding nations demand democratic elections -- Egypt (controlled by Mubarak and our annual several billion dollar handout), Saudi Arabia (from whence came 15 of the 19 9/ll hijackers), Algeria (whose election majority was suppressed by its military a few years back), Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon (where a brutal civil war between Christians and Muslims devastated one of the most modern of Middle Eastern states a few decades back), Jordan (with its large Palestinian population), Libya (with its autocratic rule), Pakistan (controlled for now by our general -- with its WMD capacity), Afghanistan (with its unstable multiethnic population and opium trade)? Iran is already partially there, but our threats against it have been strengthening its military, which is beginning to replace the mullahs as the restraining influence upon its young and previously pro American population.
One does not have the sense that the U.S. or our little brother Brits have been making themselves loved in that region (particularly by voting majorities). What will the Bush administration call those who now demand democratic elections? Insurgents, terrorists, democrats?
U.S. practice this past century has been: 1) support corrupt puppet governments, 2) destabilize uncooperative regimes, 3) assassinate or imprison resistant leaders, 4) intervene and occupy when all of the above have failed. One has the sense that this particular election and that in Afghanistan were sponsored more to pacify American public opinion than to enhance the quality of life of those whom we have subdued. What lies ahead? One wonders whether our neocons have really thought out what they have unleashed. Are they just winging it again? It takes more than a military occupation to make friends of those whom one has subdued and occupied. We shall see.
And, yes, let us hope for the best for all involved.
As I heard the BBC reports this morning from a wide variety of spokespersons -- both pro and con the election -- what came through loud and clear is that the vast majority of Iraqis (70% of the Sunnis, 60% of the Shiites) want the occupiers (us) out of there. Only the Kurds favor our presence for obvious reasons -- they don't want to be suppressed again either by a dominant Iraqi government or by the Turks.
But let us ponder Pandora out of the box.
What will happen if the surrounding nations demand democratic elections -- Egypt (controlled by Mubarak and our annual several billion dollar handout), Saudi Arabia (from whence came 15 of the 19 9/ll hijackers), Algeria (whose election majority was suppressed by its military a few years back), Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon (where a brutal civil war between Christians and Muslims devastated one of the most modern of Middle Eastern states a few decades back), Jordan (with its large Palestinian population), Libya (with its autocratic rule), Pakistan (controlled for now by our general -- with its WMD capacity), Afghanistan (with its unstable multiethnic population and opium trade)? Iran is already partially there, but our threats against it have been strengthening its military, which is beginning to replace the mullahs as the restraining influence upon its young and previously pro American population.
One does not have the sense that the U.S. or our little brother Brits have been making themselves loved in that region (particularly by voting majorities). What will the Bush administration call those who now demand democratic elections? Insurgents, terrorists, democrats?
U.S. practice this past century has been: 1) support corrupt puppet governments, 2) destabilize uncooperative regimes, 3) assassinate or imprison resistant leaders, 4) intervene and occupy when all of the above have failed. One has the sense that this particular election and that in Afghanistan were sponsored more to pacify American public opinion than to enhance the quality of life of those whom we have subdued. What lies ahead? One wonders whether our neocons have really thought out what they have unleashed. Are they just winging it again? It takes more than a military occupation to make friends of those whom one has subdued and occupied. We shall see.
And, yes, let us hope for the best for all involved.
posted by Ed Kent at 8:57 AM
1 Comments:
Yo, you have a Terrific blog here! Lots of content means more readers, more readers means more interaction!
I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a
computer repair long island site/blog. It pretty much covers computer repair long island Problems with your Windows Xp Computing !
Come take a Look when you get a chance. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home