OCCOM BILL wrote:3) The propaganda machines are working overtime trying to make the United State's actions appear worse than they are. The human beings who reside in Iraq will no doubt see a change from totalitarian rule to democracy as good thing in retrospect. The closer it comes to reality, the more support it will receive. Again, regardless of the motives, Iraqi's will inevitably be better off for our efforts.
One thing that bothers me about the way you put things is how your absolute conviction in the Cause almost seems to make you feel that you know better what reality there really is like than those
who actually live there.
The above is a poll undertaken by a bunch of Western broadcasters - ABC, the BBC, a German and a Japanese broadcaster, plus the University of Oxford. It is not the expression of an anti-American "propaganda machine", as is also witnessed by the results that do reflect favourably on the changes. I can think of no reason why you, relying on what the US media report, would know better what Iraqis really feel than what they themselves have expressed in a poll like that.
Reason why it bothers me is probably personal. There's this line in your reasoning thats like - "and if they really don't see yet that they've been liberated and that its all going to be good for them, then they will see it later, when we've finished!". This reminds me a great deal of those other idealists - the communist ones. Many of them had the best intentions when they started to impose their revolutionary changes on the hapless peasants of Russia (etc). "We're bringing you freedom! Equality!", they cried out when the peasants protested at all that sudden change. And when those protests became violent, they beat them down. "Its just the counterrevoluationary holdovers from the ancien regime!", the communists asserted, and imprisoned the nobles. And then, the priests. And the "kulaks". And all this time the communists told themselves: once we get there, once we've created communism for them, they will see what we've done for them, and they will be grateful!
Of course, when you look back now, you can't avoid wishing they had listened a bit more to what those peasants were feeling right then, and a little less to that fiery inner conviction about what HUMAN BEINGS must be like - and how history would prove them right!
Now, before I go all the way to the other side - like you, I have a firm conviction that anyone would "see a change from totalitarian rule to democracy as good thing". (I also think Sadr's radicals probably have no more right to speak on behalf of "the Iraqis" than the CPA does.)
But the trouble with these things is that changes never come alone. If the change to democracy goes hand-in-hand with spiralling inflation, mass unemployment and economical crisis, as it did for varying lengths of time in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, you might well get a bunch of people feeling that "it was better the old way". Either because they think the benefits of democracy dont outweigh the downsides of the changeover, or because - never having lived in a democracy before - this one experience has made them believe that democracy=losing all livelihood security, and they thus declare themselves against it, period.
Same in Iraq. Yes, I have the same belief as you that, given the pure choice between "democracy" and "a totalitarian regime", anyone would choose the former. But the invasion of Iraq didn't
just bring democracy. It also brought distrusted occupation troops, death and destruction during the war, and escalating violence now. It brought violence between Iraqi groups and the popular suspicion (even if unfounded) of Kurdish separatism. Et cetera. That is why its
well possible that many Iraqis, though glad Saddam has gone, dont see the black and white transition from Evil to Good you see, when they look at what occupation/liberation looks like.
Which brings us to the next point: that this is not a clear journey from A to B, with "backwards" or forwards" as the only options.
OCCOM BILL wrote:4) Those who are losing their unearned "position" will of course fight to keep their status. As the futility of their fight becomes clearer; they will be forced to accept the options as accept or perish. This is inevitable.
You're no
longer just fighting Baathist holdovers in the Sunnite triangle. You're fighting Shi'ites now, too, people who had no "position" in the old regime at all. I'm not saying they're necessarily
right or anything - I'm just observing that the "we're only fighting remnants of the old regime" presentation reflects the situation on the ground ever less.
What you're now gradually getting into is much more volatile territory - violence thats not about moving forward vs moving backward (to Saddams time), but violence that's provoked by clashing views of
where you're moving forward to.
Sadr and Sistani disagree forcefully on that Q; and the Americans disagree forcefully with
both. And Iraqis, apparently, even when glad they no longer suffer under Baathist totalitarianism, are divided about what combination of different options is best now - full Western democracy, Islamic law or a strong leader - or democracy-but-with-a-strong-leader, democracy-but-with-a-prominent-role-for-the-religious-leaders, et cetera? 'Ccording to the poll, an impressive plurality (tho not majority) wants a fully-fledged democracy. But they also think a strong leader is necessary in the short term, plus they trust their religious leaders overwhelmingly more than the political parties, Governing Council, etc.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I totally believe that the ongoing power struggle, with the world's most powerful referee in the middle, is the best possible scenario to exact the minimum loss of life during this difficult transition.
You shouldn't have any illusions about being "the referee". You're very much a party in the fight, and acting like one.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Give a human being an honest shot at a decent lot in life and he will not strap bombs to his chest.
Absolutely. But again what you're banking on is that what the Iraqis see when they look at Bremer and the CPA, is a coupla good guys trying to give them "an honest shot at a decent lot in life" - instead of, say, the invaders and occupiers of their country.
The perceptions on that among Iraqis, judging on a poll like this, are at least mixed enough to evoke concern. Concern that should be addressed with more than mere expressions of personal belief in the Rightness of the Overall Cause. Just stubbornly plowing on is not always the best way to deal with obstacles you come across.
OCCOM BILL wrote:If (when) the area is cleaned up and the evil 5% are rendered impotent; the other 95% will be dancing in the streets. Forgive them if they don't start cooperating on day one of the crackdowns.
The parallel with the gangsters and dealers in your neighbourhood depends on the Iraqis viewing the insurgents as their equivalent. For now, the parallel might just still hold up - I do think Sadr doesnt exactly speak for the silent majority (or didnt, anyway). But when it comes to popular perceptions, terrorists can all too easily turn into freedomfighters. Its a tricky dilemma. You want to stamp out radicalinski insurgents before they mess up the place totally - but if you, yourself a largely distrusted foreign occupation force, clamp down on them with uncurbed violence, you risk triggering a "but its
our son of a bitch" response.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Perhaps Setanta or one of the other historians can site an example of a ruling class willingly, peacefully succumbing to the will of the masses, but I can think of none.
The dissolution of Franco's regime in Spain, the collapse of the communist regimes of Central Europe and the "retirement" of Pinochet spring to mind.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I think most everyone recognizes the need to see this through. Regardless of whether we should have started; we do need to finish. [..] I believe there is a greater profit in finishing this job in altruistic fashion (regardless of original intentions) than proving the doubters correct.
I think so too, actually - I simply suspect we disagree a great deal on what "see this through" means and how it needs to be done.
)
Is there some good reason you've attacked me with this same unrelated post in two different locations? 
This is how I responded in the other.
. Consider that I would have no "observed results" to notice, if I was the bigot you've accused me repeatedly of being. I've also noticed that moderately good-looking people out-sell beautiful and ugly people alike. So what? Depending on the product, sometimes men will outsell women, sometimes the other way around
again, so what? Perhaps you've been lucky enough to never have to think with your wallet. Or perhaps you've never had to make an unfair decision. I care what you think; just barely enough to clarify myself. If you don't care to understand
or you still think I'm a bigot, I can live with that. But, it isn't true.
