Margaret Wente adds her voice to the number of people pointing out that the Iraqis are conspicuously absent from the anti-war movements. Why? Because they want nothing more than to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
There’s just one problem with all this lofty moral talk. So far as the Iraqi people are concerned, liberation can’t come soon enough. This is a dreadfully inconvenient fact for peace protesters. So they ignore it.
[ . . . ]
There are many reasons to oppose a war. But the best interests of the innocent Iraqi people are not among them. And the sight of sanctimonious Westerners pretending to speak for them, and demanding that they be kept enslaved by the most brutal dictator outside North Korea, is not an edifying one.
War is terrible. But there are worse things. Just ask the people of Iraq.
This is not exactly an original observation, but it’s one that tends to get lost in the shuffle.
Did Margaret mention that there were a large number of Iraqis that were pro-war? Were those voices that I missed? I notice she (like the Lorax) speaks for the Iraqi people now. Margaret is quite a feminist –she can bear the white man’s burden as good as any man.
There may be many reasons to support war, but the best interests of the Iraqi people is not one of them. The interests of the Iraqi people are not the main focus of the party-of-war (Hezb-e-Jang?).
What about Keinan Malkiya (sp?) voice supporting war? He’s an Iraqi (in exile) and he supports the war.
Yah. I read an article by Kanan Makiya in Dissent magazine. It’s pretty good. But you can find anti-war Iraqis as well. Not just Salam Pax the blogger. The CBC had a piece on an Iraqi family in Jordan last night. Desparate to come to Canada. Absolutely against a war.
I’m not arguing that the consequences of war will be bad for all Iraqis. I’m arguing that the Hezb-e-Jang is not going to conduct the war for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Even Mark Steyn is beginning to figure this out.
I had high hopes after the first Gulf War. Kuwait was going to be a democracy. Saudi women would be able to drive. Kurds would be free in their own state. Shias in southern Iraq would have representation by population. We were told that war was not about oil.
It was a crock of shit. It’s fair to judge the USA by its actions. And its actions have been, in the Middle-East, generally unconcerned with democracy or the welfare of ordinary citizens. Why should anyone believe they’ve changed?
September 11, 2001
Barry, Thus far, there is very little evidence that S11 has increased US appetite for democracy in the Middle East.
It’s increased the rhetoric — I agree on that. But US rhetoric has always been quite good. They stockpile pseudo-Chruchillian language.
So let’s wait and see if the American mlitary government in Iraq will truly allow free eletions, including Islamist, Shia revolutionary and communist candidates. Will they allow an anti-Israeli government? Will they accept one that jacks up the price of oil?
I’ll repeat my earlier comment — you don’t invade a country and then not control it. To the extent that Iraqi democracy does not interefere with American interests, it will be allowed. No more.
You think that Iraqis have democracy now?
I fail to see how this is controversial. Of course the U.S.’s foreign policy isn’t all about instituting democracy around the world. It’s about dealing with rogue states which it deems a threat to its security. It so happens that rogue states are rarely very nice to their inhabitants (including citizens); it so happens that the best, and coincidentally most responsible, way of cleaning up a rogue state involves ensuring a reasonable governing regime, as opposed to blowing the country to smithereens. All reasons why the U.S. should make movements in this direction.
But democratic governance in Iraq, or Uzbekistan, or Liberia, and so forth are certainly not what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. It sees Iraq as a threat, either direct or, more likely, indirect, as the source of military action that causes harm in the Middle East that, etc. The U.S. has a long arm, so it’s plenty exposed.
Which is not to take a position on U.S.-Iraq, obviously. Just to point out that those looking to critique the U.S. position should start by getting it right.
James: I agree that the
U.S.’s foreign policy isn’t all about instituting democracy around the world
I was only trying to counter a astonishingly widespread view that the US will be invading Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people. The good of the Iraqi people is irrelevant to this administration. Could go one way, could go the other.
This is not a slur on the US, as Iraqis don’t elect the US president and he owes them nothing. He should act in the best interests of the USA.
Some believe that democracy in Iraq (and the rest of the the mideast) is
in the best interests of the USA. Mark Steyn thinks so. Bill Clinton (usually) thought so. The current US gvt does not believe it.
Evidence: Take a look at the suspension of Pariament and postponement of elections in Jordan, without a peep from the US gvt. It’s undemocratic, repressive, and shows to Jordanians that the US gvt talks democracy, but prefers dictatorships (slash ruling Monarchies, same thing).
(Is this view by the US gvt rational? Maybe. But well beyond the scope of a comment. I’ll do an entry on my own blog. Title: Why GWB should thank his Christian God for the Ayatollah Khomenei)
That the US gvt prefers, in general, dictatorships over democracy in the mid-east is fine. My peeve is that so many Americans (and some Canadians) are unable to figure this out. Yes, by all means, invade other countries if it suits you. But for the love of God, don’t pretend you do it for their own good. It’s literally adding insult to injury.