another view

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 7:12pm

amid the pessimism:

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; General George Casey, USA, Commander, U.S. Forces In Iraq
Monday, June 27, 2005 1:39 p.m. EDT

DoD News Briefing

            SEC. RUMSFELD:  Good afternoon, folks.  One week from today Americans will celebrate the 229th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence that launched our war of liberation.  It's easy to forget that those early patriots faced monumental difficulties as they sought to overcome an array of failures and obstacles.  But they had the vision and the courage to persevere and establish the first enduring democracy the world had then known. 

            The people of Iraq today are in the earliest days of their struggle to build a multiethnic democracy.  Ultimately, it will be up to the Iraqi people -- not the United States, not the coalition -- to rebuild and secure their country.  The mission of our coalition is to create an environment, where the Iraqis themselves can contain and ultimately defeat their insurgency.     

            Despite their long-neglected infrastructure and their lack of experience with democracy, the Iraqi people have demonstrated both the will and the capacity to succeed.  They have oil, water, intelligent people, well-educated people, and a heritage of a great civilization that can be put to work to build a moderate Iraq version of a self- governing society.   

            The suggestion of those who say we are losing, or that we're in a quagmire, seems to be that, as long as there's violence in Iraq, that the conclusion must be that insurgents are winning.  Not so.   

            Consider the changes of the past year.  A democratically elected government is in place, and more than 8 million Iraqis went to the polls, defying intimidation at home and skepticism here in the United States, in their region and abroad.  The Sunni minority now has belatedly recognize that boycotting their election was a mistake.  And they are rejoining the political process. 

            Insurgents remain capable of savage attacks, to be sure.  But they can no longer take advantage of sanctuaries like Fallujah to train, plan and hold hostages.   

            Iraq's security forces have grown steadily in size and capability.  They have equipment and experience they previously lacked, and are earning the confidence and support of the Iraqi people.   

             Conversely, the violent extremists have had little to show for their efforts, except for a growing body count of mostly Iraqi civilians, and a skillful knack for grabbing headlines -- free publicity worth millions to their violent cause.  But despite their public affairs skills, they are not a nationalist movement, they don't have a vision, and they will eventually lose. 

             In his meeting with President Bush on Friday, Iraq's new prime minister thanked the American people for their patience and for their resolve.  The Iraqi leaders recognize that there's more work to be done and that the work is theirs to do.  Their tasks include: ensuring that there are no delays in drafting or voting on the new Iraqi constitution, strengthening the Iraqi ministries to improve their ability to provide needed services and to reduce coalition involvement, aggressively encouraging their neighbors to close their neighbors to terrorists, persuading Iraqi's Sunnis to reject the insurgency and embrace the political process, and to work closely with their coalition allies to turn responsibility for more cities and provinces over to Iraqi security forces. 

            Success for the coalition should not be defined as domestic tranquility in Iraq.  Other democracies have had to contend with terrorism and insurgencies for a number of years, but they've been able to function and eventually succeed.  As in difficult conflicts of the past, lasting progress and achievements do not come from reacting to headlines or chasing mercurial opinion polls.  Setbacks are inevitable, and important victories are seldom won without risk, sacrifice and patience. 

            Recently, the mood and commitment of the American people towards the efforts in Iraq have been the subject of discussion.  Our American system places all of our faith and all of our hope in the people of our country, and the confidence that, given sufficient information, over time that they'll find their way to the right decisions.  I believe they will do so on Iraq.  And I also believe that one day, those that have worked so hard and sacrificed so much -- Americans, our coalition partners, and Iraqis alike -- will look back with pride at what will then be seen as an historic accomplishment. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 7:37pm

What a mouthful

The Mambo man strikes again. Lets have a hand for the Mambo Man

Posted: 6/29/05 at 7:43pm

I am curious about the thought that a society can't have something thrust upon them, but rather that they must be ready and willing to make the leap themselves. I've questioned before what the US response would have been if back in the 50's some other country had invaded, saying they were going to jump-start our progress on civil rights since we obviously weren't getting there ourselves. While the stated goals are noble and have obviously arguable benefits, I do wonder if the sustainability is viable since someone else came in and 'got things rolling.' If they didn't have the fortitude and will to start the process, will they be able to keep it rolling?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 8:46pm

i think that it's kinda apples and oranges, d. the iraqi peoplle lived under constant threat of death. thousands disappeared for even being suspected of maybe thinking bad about saddam. he modeled his state on stalin's soviet union and was even more brutal in his application of violence to control the population through fear than uncle joe. the shiites once did stand up against him, after the first gulf war and we didn't support them and he killed 10,000 of them. after decades of that kind of brutal oppression people begin to think twice about raising up against it. especially when you don't know if the person you're talking to is an agent of the state. thinking about revolution was suicide. in that kind of situation, outside intervention may be the only way to break the cycle. remember this was a minority government of sunnis who only held power through ruthless applications of the most heinous methods of torture and violence. i just don't think that your comparison is apt in this case.

i'm not discounting the horrors inflicted upon minorities during the fight for civil rights and the years leading to it (or since), but the kind of organized, state sponsored mass murder and viciousness was not there. it could be argued that it was during the formation of the country in our treatment of native americans, but that's not the case you made. and i would argue that those years, while abominable, were a product of their less enlightened times and that of a people and a nation less educated and less mature than that embodied by saddam's iraq. that's not an excuse for the behavior, per se, but rather and explanation as to why i find that to be less worthy of intercession.

Posted: 6/29/05 at 8:59pm

Valid point, papa. But then my question becomes, "Why there, why now?" The obvious answer is that world events led us in that direction - especially when they hit 'close to home', as it were. But I think there's a bit of side-stepping involved when the situation is presented in terms of how horrible it was there. The fact is, it's been worse in other places - Africa comes to mind. So why there?

The answer lies in a worldwide unease with the growing Muslim fundamentalism, but it's such a touchy subject, that no one is willing to address it - at least officially.

A chance existed to go after specific perpetrators of specific events, but that was passed up for this over-arcing goal of democratizing the Middle East by planting a seed somewhere. But what is it exactly that we're confronting? I can't help but have very tense thoughts about a continuation of the Crusades - which didn't exactly mark a 'high point' in human history.

I feel like there's people saying, "Well, what are we supposed to do?" And while I agree with that sentiment, I wonder if the rush to physical over-powering is the only option.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily saying it should be discounted as an option, I just wonder if it's the appropriate one for the situation. I really do see that as a 'choice of last resort' - and, as a former military member who understands the 'contract' between a society and its members, I'm not sure that all bases have been covered.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 9:32pm

why there, why now?

to me, the status quo was not acceptable anymore and while afghanistan was a bold step and a necessary one, it was not one that could translate itself into a greater goal. africa's always been the red-headed stepchild of the world and you'll get no argument that they've been given short shrift way too many times. i think iraq was the only logical place because of the reasons i stated in another thread:

well, hell the saudis are the ones who were on the planes, let's get them, right? two words: mecca and medina. so that's out. syria? maybe but we still haven't seen whether bashir can control the military and the political factions there, so maybe he needs a bit more time. iran? good choise, but they're way too nationalistic for an outside invasion to work. what's left? the guy who's flouted un sanctions for 12 years. the guy who everyone thinks has wmds. the guy whose kid killed members of the olympic soccer team for losing. yeah, it's saddam.

were others worse? yep. but this presented a unique opportunity to influence a generation of people.

i don't know that it's so much unease with muslim fundamentalism so much as it is an unease with those who are willing to use islam to justify orgies of death.

while we did go after specific purveyors of violence and rout them out of their comfy state sponsored existences, to answer the growing tide of violence wwhich crested with 9/11 with limited and specific attacks was to embolden those who would claim a victory by the deaths of thousands of innocents. in their madrassas and in their camps the cry could go out, "see, we strike the great america and they drop a few bombs. they are weak and we can act with relative impunity. we kill them in the streets and they wring their hands and wonder what they have done to deserve this." instead, we have responded in the manner which has unfolded. which while imperfect and often brutal is far superior to the choice of limited attacks and deep introspection.

the people who strike at us are looking to establish brutal theocracies, the like of which makes the christian coalition look like a fire island party skit. this is not aa battle of christians versus muslims, it's a battle of civilization versus barbarism. they offer nothing but destruction, death and humiliation.

i don't think that we're necessarily over-powering annyone so much as we are setting the conditions for the people's voices to be heard for the first time in a great while. certainly some of those voice will call for a return to the dark ages, but i'm betting that the majority of them will look to the world and reject an idealogy of hatred, death and brutality. that is what folks like the taliban offer. that is the religion of al qaeda. they practice not islam, but murder and are guilty daily of blasphemy agaisnt their own god.

we're not fighting to establish christianity, but to allow muslims to practice islam without fear that their daughters will be stoned to death for walking to school. we're fighting to give hope to a region that is sorely lacking. hope that will balm the souls of a people long bitter and wiithout pride. hope in a region tormented too long by brutality and oppression. with hope will come change and with change will come a peace that will eventually crush those who seek to use religion as a justification for mass murder.

Posted: 6/29/05 at 10:22pm

Well, papa, the view is certainly a wide one, but also one with great potential.

I'm afraid I can only respond initially with my two oft-repeated concerns. When is intropection a bad thing, and will they respond in the long run when the impetus has not been organic?

Thanks for the thoughts - it certainly gives a different impression than our leaders are - and in that, if nothing else, they are failing miserably.