The war in Iraq is going to grind on for years at various levels of violence. Iraq’s referendum did not stop the insurgency, it cannot by itself, but in habituating millions of Iraqis to democratic expectations of governance, it was an irreplaceable event. Iraqis now know the difference between a sham election run by Sadaam’s Baathist goons and a real democracy; and the concept of ” consent of the governed”, so intolerable to Zarqawi’s Islamists and Baathist die-hards alike, has been legitimized, once again, by precedent.
These are effects that can be suppressed for a time but never erased.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
collounsbury:
October 24th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
First, with respect to the blog item, I am pained that you quote more of the simple minded anti-French tripe. Childish and rather outdated (as well as inaccurate with respect to the supposed connexions).
Second the naive idea that Iraq is even now something contributing to any kind of liberalisation is pure idiocy. What one sees from here in the region is dangerous “faouda” – chaos – and group warfare that is deeply feared in the region after the Lebanese example.
The bloody idiotic headline reading – how many times have I read in the last decade about the fucking oppositions here “uniting” – is pointless whanking on by gullible fools.
Finally, although I would love it if it is in fact the case that the referendum estalbished “democratic norms” – why I will be far, far richer if that is the case and stability comes – there is nothing at present to say that in fact what is not occuring is old school sectarian power scuffles with the slight facade of ‘democracy.’
So far I have not lost money by being deeply cynical of these supposed benchmarks, I expect I expect I will not start losing soon.
mark:
October 25th, 2005 at 12:57 am
You raised some points I think I’ll deal with in a full post, Col – have to finish an overly ambitious powerpoint presentation first however for work