Comments on: The Rewards of ‘Democracy’ in Iraq http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/ Hot Contemporary Issues Discussed from an Afghan Perspective Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:23:50 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-41 MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:22:59 +0000 http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-41 So what you're basically trying to say is that despite the knowledge that Iraq may descend into chaos and civil war if the troops pull out, they must pull out? What I am trying to say is that the international community has already broken the prerequisites of democracy by invading Iraq, so what's wrong in keeping the invasion a little longer if it can help the Iraqis strengthen their security institutions so as to enable them to take control of their homeland? This will serve two purposes: 1. The international community will fulfil their responisbility of bringing peace to that land in exchange for their accountability of bringing violence. 2. The international community will be spared another invasion in case the Iraqis were unable to control the situation and the insurgents ran rampant. So what you’re basically trying to say is that despite the knowledge that Iraq may descend into chaos and civil war if the troops pull out, they must pull out?

What I am trying to say is that the international community has already broken the prerequisites of democracy by invading Iraq, so what’s wrong in keeping the invasion a little longer if it can help the Iraqis strengthen their security institutions so as to enable them to take control of their homeland? This will serve two purposes:
1. The international community will fulfil their responisbility of bringing peace to that land in exchange for their accountability of bringing violence.
2. The international community will be spared another invasion in case the Iraqis were unable to control the situation and the insurgents ran rampant.

]]> By: Jamie Stern-Weiner http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-34 Jamie Stern-Weiner Mon, 29 May 2006 20:05:36 +0000 http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-34 "“the hundreds of thousands of [Iraqi] soldiers and police officials trained are not well trained and well equipped to handle the security of the country.”" And their job is being made impossible by the continued presence of foreign occupiers. "they have to be held accountable for it. Therefore, they must stay long enough to restore peace in the country by strengthening the security institutions so as to enable the Iraqis to take control of the country by themselves" But that sentence itself is a contradiction. Coalition troops are part of the problem, not the solution. The insurgency is, in a significant part, a response to the occupation. There will never be peace or stability while the occupation is there. Perhaps thats why the Iraqi people want it to end. "Do you reckon we have a better solution at hand at this moment other than what is provided here? I don’t." Unfortunately, when you illegally invade a country and kill 100,000 people, yes, its going to be difficult. I absolutely believe we should be held to account, but not by punishing the Iraqis further. For a start, since one of the pretexts for invasion was democracy, we should listen to the voice of the people. That voice demands an end to the occupation immediately. After all coalition presence is withdrawn - that includes corporate power - we should then, of course, respond to requests for help. ““the hundreds of thousands of [Iraqi] soldiers and police officials trained are not well trained and well equipped to handle the security of the country.””

And their job is being made impossible by the continued presence of foreign occupiers.

“they have to be held accountable for it. Therefore, they must stay long enough to restore peace in the country by strengthening the security institutions so as to enable the Iraqis to take control of the country by themselves”

But that sentence itself is a contradiction. Coalition troops are part of the problem, not the solution. The insurgency is, in a significant part, a response to the occupation. There will never be peace or stability while the occupation is there. Perhaps thats why the Iraqi people want it to end.

“Do you reckon we have a better solution at hand at this moment other than what is provided here? I don’t.”

Unfortunately, when you illegally invade a country and kill 100,000 people, yes, its going to be difficult. I absolutely believe we should be held to account, but not by punishing the Iraqis further. For a start, since one of the pretexts for invasion was democracy, we should listen to the voice of the people. That voice demands an end to the occupation immediately. After all coalition presence is withdrawn – that includes corporate power – we should then, of course, respond to requests for help.

]]> By: MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-33 MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan Mon, 29 May 2006 02:53:35 +0000 http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-33 I advocate the troops to stay in Iraq because: 1. "the hundreds of thousands of [Iraqi] soldiers and police officials trained are not well trained and well equipped to handle the security of the country." 2. "It can reasonably be inferred that the rise in insurgency and sectarian violence is a direct upshot of the invasion..." and that they have to be held accountable for it. Therefore, they must stay long enough to restore peace in the country by strengthening the security institutions so as to enable the Iraqis to take control of the country by themselves. 3. If the forces leave, "it [Iraq] is going to turn into a sectarian and ethnic battleground." Do you reckon we have a better solution at hand at this moment other than what is provided here? I don't. I advocate the troops to stay in Iraq because:
1. “the hundreds of thousands of [Iraqi] soldiers and police officials trained are not well trained and well equipped to handle the security of the country.”
2. “It can reasonably be inferred that the rise in insurgency and sectarian violence is a direct upshot of the invasion…” and that they have to be held accountable for it. Therefore, they must stay long enough to restore peace in the country by strengthening the security institutions so as to enable the Iraqis to take control of the country by themselves.
3. If the forces leave, “it [Iraq] is going to turn into a sectarian and ethnic battleground.”

Do you reckon we have a better solution at hand at this moment other than what is provided here? I don’t.

]]> By: Jamie Stern-Weiner http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-32 Jamie Stern-Weiner Sun, 28 May 2006 20:07:37 +0000 http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/the-rewards-of-%e2%80%98democracy%e2%80%99-in-iraq/#comment-32 Good post. However, you contradict yourself: You finish by recommending the illegal occupation continue, because it it didn't, Iraq would turn into a "sectarian and ethnic battleground". Setting aside the fact that, even from your own description, it appears that Iraq is already that (75 insurgent attacks *a day*), you state further up the post that "It can reasonably be inferred that the rise in insurgency and sectarian violence is a direct upshot of the invasion and that it wouldn’t have happened had the US and its allies not invaded Iraq." You are correct...sort of: it can be reasonably inferred that the invasion caused the problem, but more specifically it can be reasonably inferred that the occupation is part of the problem rather than the solution. Let alone the fact that the Iraqis themselves (you know, the ones we are supposedly gifting democracy to) unequivocally want us out (something like 84%, a Gallup poll recorded). With this in mind, how can you advocate a continuation of the occupation? Good post.

However, you contradict yourself:

You finish by recommending the illegal occupation continue, because it it didn’t, Iraq would turn into a “sectarian and ethnic battleground”.
Setting aside the fact that, even from your own description, it appears that Iraq is already that (75 insurgent attacks *a day*), you state further up the post that “It can reasonably be inferred that the rise in insurgency and sectarian violence is a direct upshot of the invasion and that it wouldn’t have happened had the US and its allies not invaded Iraq.”

You are correct…sort of: it can be reasonably inferred that the invasion caused the problem, but more specifically it can be reasonably inferred that the occupation is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Let alone the fact that the Iraqis themselves (you know, the ones we are supposedly gifting democracy to) unequivocally want us out (something like 84%, a Gallup poll recorded).

With this in mind, how can you advocate a continuation of the occupation?

]]>