Bogey appears to be a quiet, cerebral liberal, not quite the ranting leftists we see and hear. He is calm and reasoned in his arguments. Then he goes and writes something like this:
I’m still hooked on the idea of doing this all on the down-low. Train the right people the right way, get inside, kill all the right bastards ? just enough of them to give ordinary people the opportunity to rise up and take their countries back from religious extremists who won’t accept a changing, evolving, interdependent world. I’ve seen plenty of posts out in the blogosphere wondering, “Why aren’t the Iraqi people rising up? Why aren’t they rooting out and killing the bastards who are trying to sabotage their great shot at a free, prosperous future?” Well, I’m starting to think it’s just because we’re there.
I wish we could do just such a thing. Unfortunately, those very people you’ve trained end up being the next Saddam.
He is spot-on about the Iraqi people needing to step up. Some have, especially in Najaf. But the society has to mature. This is a culture which has operated under threat for two generations, and longer. They do not yet know whom they can trust with their lives. Neighbors have always turned in neighbors, or turned a blind eye to avoid being caught up in something bad. It will take some time to repair the psychological damage.
I almost addressed that in my original post, but it was running kind of long already. I agree completely — how could anyone argue with the overwhelming historical precedent that supports your point?
I could sit here and speculate wildly on ways we could do it differently this time, without simply propping up yet another asshole dictator. I won’t, though, because I’m not qualified to do so — I realize that my suggestions wouldn’t be worth much of anything. But I believe that our government, intelligence agencies, and military could figure out a way if they committed themselves to it.
I’m just not convinced that our extended presence there can really speed the development of that maturity. I know that we’re doing lots of good work there too, but with bombs and firefights in their cities on a regular basis, how much can that psychological damage you mentioned be healing ? Just seems like one type of damage replacing another.
Wow, did you manage to call me a “ranting leftist” for advocating a Reaganesque course of action? (Plus stating yourself that “I wish we could do just such a thing” and saying I’m “spot-on” about a key element of the argument!) Now that’s some impressive spin… can you show me how to put that on my mid-iron shots?
Comment by Bogey — June 10, 2004 @ 11:58 pm
Get your glasses fixed! I noted you are not one of those!
Comment by Bunker — June 11, 2004 @ 12:13 pm
I guess I should have addressed your point about maturity.
I think a large section of the population in Iraq have that maturity themselves. But as a culture, they have a ways to go. What sets Iraq apart from Afghanistan, which seems to be going better, is that there is a large part of the population with an education, and many have lived in the West for at least some part of their lives. That gives them a taste of the good and bad we have to offer, and with any luck they’ll be able to incorporate some into their own, “customized” system of government.
During prep for my trip to Kuwait last year, I spent a lot of time with some American Iraqis (some now US citizens) who were on their way to Iraq as interpreters. We spoke very candidly, and most agreed Iraq would be easier to build into a representative government. I have to say, though, that one of that group had us all concerned about his loyalties. He gave the impression as being a radical of the type we see setting off bombs. I wonder…
Many countries in this world live with bombings on a daily basis. I think the Iraqis will grow into a nation that refuses to tolerate such behavior, and I hope they don’t do it by electing a new strong man that assumes total power.
Comment by Bunker — June 11, 2004 @ 12:23 pm
You’re kidding, right? You wrote that I appear to not be “one of those,” then add:
The clear implication is that “what he wrote belies the appearance and reveals that he IS in fact one of those.” No offense was taken because I know that you most likely meant it on a this-specific-basis. Just reminding you that what you write is what you write, what you mean is what you mean, and sometimes they do not synch up.
Besides, my initials are RL, after all… I’m still fine with wearing any of those RL hats on an issue-by-issue basis. Ranting Leftist? Ridiculous Liberal? Rambunctious Libertarian? Republican-Leaning? So many possibilities.
Even Reagan-Like. I still think that was the position I took in my own post, which makes your initial response seem so illogical. Imagine Reagan as president throughout the Clinton years, and then tell me why he wouldn’t have been secretly supporting the overthrow of potentially hostile or dangerous governments in the Middle East like he did elsewhere around the world. Did he reserve that kind of covert activity specifically to combat Communism? Can anyone say that for sure?
Comment by Bogey — June 12, 2004 @ 10:20 am
Sentence sequence seems to be the issue here. You are not a ranting leftist, but a reasoning liberal. You then write something people would expect from someone like me.
If that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what would!
Comment by Bunker — June 12, 2004 @ 11:27 am
How about me supporting Ted Kennedy???
Comment by Slice — June 12, 2004 @ 1:14 pm