Winning the hearts and minds... of the enemy
There are many parallels in the handling of the wars in Chechnya and Iraq. Chechnya has just held a parliamentary election. Candidates supporting independence were banned from running and all candidates are supporters of Putin’s hard line policies. Photos of dancing and jubilation were beamed over state run television and Moscow has touted these elections as the first step towards peace. Sound familiar?
The insurgencies in both countries will not be quelled by elections that in the minds of many in the population are not truly democratic. Peace won’t come to Chechnya without the inclusion of Chechen rebels in the democratic process; it won’t come to Iraq without the inclusion of Sunni rebels. That’s a fairly radical statement that will have a lot of people on both the left and right shaking their heads, but it is clear that beyond the leadership of both these insurgencies there is a sympathetic fringe that need to be embraced for reform and ultimately peace to ensue. Attracting that support will require the negotiation of a ceasefire and ultimately the politicization of the rebel movements. Alternatively Russia and the US can continue fighting wars they can never win.
The insurgencies in both countries will not be quelled by elections that in the minds of many in the population are not truly democratic. Peace won’t come to Chechnya without the inclusion of Chechen rebels in the democratic process; it won’t come to Iraq without the inclusion of Sunni rebels. That’s a fairly radical statement that will have a lot of people on both the left and right shaking their heads, but it is clear that beyond the leadership of both these insurgencies there is a sympathetic fringe that need to be embraced for reform and ultimately peace to ensue. Attracting that support will require the negotiation of a ceasefire and ultimately the politicization of the rebel movements. Alternatively Russia and the US can continue fighting wars they can never win.
posted by mochi at 8:38 PM
15 Comments:
Mochi,
I think you and I are on the same page on this one. I personally think that democracy is beyond reach of the middle eastern barbarians.
Jack, in the middle east, as in America, barbarians make up part of the population, but not all are barbarians. Democracy is not beyond their reach, if enough of them want it. On the other hand, if most of them want to structure their government according to their fundamentalist religious beliefs, then the result will be a theocracy.
Is democracy beyond the reach of American barbarians? I mean, we don't live in a democracy, do we? When will we achieve it? What is required? Is it beyond our reach?
Wait a minute, Shea! I was just echoing what the left has been saying ever since Saddam was toppled. The two elections that have been held have been viewed with derision (even given that women were allowed to vote for the first time in Iraq) by the left. I was just agreeing.
We lived in a much more democratic society than any in the world. However, since we have embraced socialism as nirvana we have steadily moved away from it. This started after the Depression. One can't have it both ways. One either limits government or relinquishes control to it. Maybe we are becoming more barbaric.
-Jack
Why don't we live in a democracy?
Sean: because we live in a republic.
Jack: when the Iraqi elections were criticized it was with regard to the installation of a puppet regime (something the US is known to engage in).
That we are the most democratic is debatable. Are you just referring to the fact that we vote?
Socialism - this is getting to be the right's blanket condemnation for everything they don't like, and it is getting downright comical. You don't like your neighbor's dog? They're obviously both socialists. Shoes too tight? Socialist. The cashier at the mini-mart look weird? He must be a socialist, too.
Listen, man, here is what Socialism is:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Or,
A political theory advocating state ownership of industry
Or,
An economic system based on state ownership of capital
Where, oh where, oh where do you find the "left" in America advocating state ownership of the means of production? Nowhere! Do you want to know why?
Because Liberalism is defined as:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority... An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Or,
A political orientation that favors progress and reform; an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard.
Now, you look at the so-called "conservative" government, in bed with defense contractors, energy industrialists, corrupt lobbyists, handing out favors to big business and letting them create public policy, and you tell me who the "socialists" are. Surprise! It's the republicans! Ha!
Now, what is it about "the free market" that you righties don't like?
BONUS STATEMENT: I AM A LIBERAL... NOT A SOCIALIST!
Give me a friggin' break. Our troops are not facing a civil rebellion. Rather, Al Qaeda operatives are stirring up dissent via threats against women and children. Do you know any troops fighting the good fight in Iraq? I do. I also have a very good friend who has served three tours of duty with Blackwater USA, a private security firm charged with protecting diplomats and private individuals in Iraq. The citizens of Iraq love them, and even tag along providing valuable intelligence regarding where the terrorists are placing IEDs (it's the citizens in Iraq who rat out the terrorists).
A Russian puppet will always be a puppet. Seeded democracies ultimately become free. Period.
Shea, technically speaking a Republic is a representative democracy.
Shea, I also know what socialism is as I have lived under it for many years. Whether it be Fabian or Democratic it is still based on a final goal of egalitarianism, and therefore is UNDEMOCRATIC. As individualism and egalitarianism are mutually exclusive concepts, one cannot have one and the other. It has to be one OR the other.
Ok, if Liberalism is all what you say, then why are liberals in favor of higher taxation for social spending? That is not about individualism--it is about egalitarianism. Redistribution of wealth is a war cry of liberals (in the United States)--that is socialism.
You see, Shea, I have listened to liberals for decades and warned them that what they wanted was not what they were supposed to stand for. You can't trump individual rights, when you want to promote equal outcomes. What liberals ALSO fail to realize is that WE DO NOT HAVE A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT! We have a socialist one.
Think about everything liberals stand for:
Gun control: Removal of individual right for the "safety of the collective". (None understand that the purpose of the second ammendment was to leave citizens armed so that they could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government--yet liberals want to take away guns from society)Socialism
Welfare: Removal of income from some to give to others. Socialism
Social Healthcare: Removal of income from some to give to others. Also increased government control over medicine. Socialism
Affirmative Action: Taking away a job from a qualified applicant to give to an ethnic or racially diverse one. Socialism
State-run Public Education: Indoctrination machines created to teach "citizenship" and "statecraft" to children. Refusing to allow competition within a FREE - LAISSEZ-FAIRE marketplace by prohibiting people from spending their education dollars where they want to educate their children. Socialism
Government funding of EVERYTHING - from AIDS research to homeless shelters. Socialism
Social Services: That children are the property of the state. And rights are granted to the parents at the whim of the state. Socialism.
Environmental: Imposing increasing regulations upon business and industry for the "collective good". Socialism.
I think this liberal summed up well what liberals believe:
"Liberals know that the more social and economic equity is achieved, the more stable and democratic a society becomes. Income and wealth should be normally distributed. Wealth creation should not be at the expense of others or the environment. Polarized societies are unjust and eventually fail."
Socialism.
Shea, the problem is that most people understand little about politics and the direction it takes. We say one thing, but our actions completely support another.
I have met many liberals who believe what you wrote above, but NONE who practice it consistently. "I believe in individual rights--I believe a woman should have a right to an abortion" (something NOT in the Constitution), BUT "I believe that no one should own a gun but government authorities and military" (something IN the Constitution). The examples and inconsistencies are so numerous it is no wonder why many liberals stay confused about what they believe or don't (ie: John Kerry)
The definition you wrote above was written by an idealist liberal, but not a REALIST liberal. Keep in mind there is a difference between what people SAY they believe and what they practice. Liberals rarely practice consistently the above, most often when it is an issue convenient to them.
I just listed a few concepts above for you to ponder. If you are in favor of any of the above, then you are as much a socialist as you are a liberal, Shea.
Recommended reading:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm
Shea, I am making broad generalizations here. Nothing personal intended. Hope it makes sense.
Kevin,
I will make a small point on your comment. IF (and only if) the Iraqi people truly desire democracy in their hearts then it may be a possibility. Every democracy in existence was born of blood, and not the blood of outsiders. Democracy cannot be forced upon a nation or culture. Unless the Iraqi people are willing to make that sacrifice, the minute we leave they will go back to what they know. Democracy is always born of revolution.
-Jack
Not in that region of the world Kevin. And anyone I know who has been there always gives mixed reviews. Some think we should be there, others dont. Round and round we go. The citizens love Blackwater USA, what about the rest of the occupying force?
I don't suppose anybody here has read Lieberman's op-ed piece in the WSJ? (registration required) Here's a snippet of it:
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
...
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
Sean,
Everyone knows that Lieberman can't be trusted! Stick to good reliable sources like Kennedy, Dean, and Durbin, silly boy!
"Its a quagmiah I tell ya, a quagmiah!"
(Joe'd better watch out--he'll get hit up side the head like Zell!)
Does it mean anything that Lieberman voted for this war, and that the trio you just mentioned has always been against it? Just be careful not to act like Lieberman might not be so inclined to put a positive spin on things, given his Senate election next year; given the presidency in 2008; given that he voted for something that the public disapproves of. The way politics seems to work now, is doing what best suits you. If he spoke out against the war, surely the Republican leadership would do what they could to discredit him, since he voted for it and the effects would be far worse for him. Not that I honor the words of the aforementioned Democrats, and the report is positive to read, but Jack, you know this bs goes on with both sides.
I know, CH. And you definitely could be right on with this one. But there is just too much conflict to be dismissive either. I find that I seriously doubt extremists--they are always deceitful in presentation, so I often weigh all of the variables.
I'm not a Lieberman fan by any means, but I do know that he is probably the most level-headed. The rest of them are "either-or" whack jobs that have created fantasy world's they really believe in.
http://newssnipet.blogspot.com/2005/11/of-heated-exaggeration-suspiciousness.html
-Jack
As far as Lieberman goes, I'll say this. If the Democrats had seen fit to nominate him for President, he would have received my vote, as well as my wife's (who is a registered Republican, by the way). I think a lot of the positive news from Iraq is ignored by our media because car bombs make better stories than schools and hospitals opening and running water and electricity.
Absolutely agreed there. Who is entertained by something as mundane (to us) as electricity and water? We take all of that for granted.
Post a Comment
<< Home