Excerpted from a commentary by Patrick Seale on George’s recent ‘democracy whether you like it or not’ speech:
It would have been more honest and more convincing had Bush said that the aims of the war were twofold: first, to establish an unchallenged strategic stronghold for the United States at the heart of the Middle East and astride its oilfields; and second to protect Israel’s regional hegemony.
No one appears to have told Bush that democracy is not an article for export. Arabs and Muslims in their great majority are eager for the material improvements (and gadgets) of Westernization, but reject a Western, and especially an American, way of life. They do not wish to be colonized by American imperialism nor do they welcome the imposition of Western Christian, and still less Jewish, culture on their Islamic societies.
For them, political nationalism, as well as pride in their own identity and in their Muslim beliefs and practices, are more powerful trends than the “democracy” the US is striving to implant. Of course they want freedom from tyrannical rulers, but the main freedom they seek is freedom from the United States.
I admit being frustrated by most discussions I’ve been reading lately concerning ‘exit strategies’. They’re usually undertaken in a tone that excludes the desires of Iraqis themselves as if their opinions aren’t valid and they aren’t capable of deciding for themselves what’s ‘good’ or ‘evil’. The conversations build upon U.S.-centered goals for ‘helping’ Iraqis achieve peace & freedom without recognising at all that past and present U.S. interests have intentionally created that disturbance of peace. The participants then go on to define for Iraqis what freedom means. There’s this common attitude that assumes since we’re ‘there’ we have the right to impose a way of life we consider to be ‘better’ even if that means overriding the majority of Iraqis should they disagree. Whether they’ll ever be given that opportunity isn’t the priority. Instead, that aspect is circumvented by discussions of what we should do if they were given it and the results were not to our liking.
Any moral discussion should begin with acknowledging that an illegal act has been committed and move on from there. The U.S. has the right to make decisions because they are too powerful to take to court? At least shed the altruistic pretenses. It’s embarrassing.
Should we be committing to years of occupation in the form of bases, plans Karen Kwiatkowski reminded listeners of a few days ago here, and Paul Bremer basically confirmed with this ridiculous statement:
“Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence,” he said. “I’m sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time to come.”
That’s what the British said.
Michael Moore is in London promoting his book and telling the Brits they need to show Bush they don’t support him.
As if they needed to be reminded by him? How did he come to this conclusion? Perfect opportunity for publicity for the book though, huh.
Then again why should you waste time reading my opinions on Iraq, when you could be reading this.