"Who's Rumsfeld?"
"Hashim al-Menti smiled wanly at the marine sergeant beside him on his couch. The sergeant had appeared in the darkness on Wednesday night, knocking on the door of Mr. Menti's home.
When Mr. Menti answered, a squad of infantrymen swiftly moved in, making him an involuntary host.
Since then marines had been on his roof with rifles, watching roads where insurgents often planted bombs.
Mr. Menti had passed the time watching television. Now he had news. He spoke in broken English. "Rumsfeld is gone," he told the sergeant, Michael A. McKinnon.
"Democracy," he added, and made a thumbs-up sign. "Good."
The marines had been on a continuous foot patrol for several days, hunting for insurgents. They were lost in the hard and isolating rhythms of infantry life.
They knew nothing of the week's news.
Now they were being told by an Iraqi whose house they occupied that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, one of the principal architects of the policies that had them here, had resigned. "Rumsfeld is gone?" the sergeant asked. "Really?"
Mr. Menti nodded. "This is better for Iraq," he said. "Iraqi people say thank you."
The sergeant went upstairs to tell his marines, just as he had informed them the day before that the Republican Party had lost control of the House of Representatives and that Congress was in the midst of sweeping change. Mr. Menti had told them that, too.
"Rumsfeld's out," he said to five marines sprawled with rifles on the cold floor.
Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr. looked up from his cigarette. "Who's Rumsfeld?" he asked."
Marines get the news from an Iraqi host: Rumsfeld's out. 'Who's Rumsfeld?'
By C.J. Chivers, New York Times, November 10, 2006
Also, in the Washington Post, James Mann offers "a warning to those who view Wednesday's appointment of Robert M. Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as representing the triumph of Bush the Father's administration over Bush the Son's. Any such analysis is far too simplistic. Gates's nomination unquestionably stands for one proposition: a long-awaited recognition that the administration's war in Iraq has been a disaster. But the broader interpretation of the appointment as representing a victory of Bush 41 over Bush 43 -- or of one school of thought over another -- breaks down when you look at Gates's background and the history of the 1980s and early '90s."
When Mr. Menti answered, a squad of infantrymen swiftly moved in, making him an involuntary host.
Since then marines had been on his roof with rifles, watching roads where insurgents often planted bombs.
Mr. Menti had passed the time watching television. Now he had news. He spoke in broken English. "Rumsfeld is gone," he told the sergeant, Michael A. McKinnon.
"Democracy," he added, and made a thumbs-up sign. "Good."
The marines had been on a continuous foot patrol for several days, hunting for insurgents. They were lost in the hard and isolating rhythms of infantry life.
They knew nothing of the week's news.
Now they were being told by an Iraqi whose house they occupied that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, one of the principal architects of the policies that had them here, had resigned. "Rumsfeld is gone?" the sergeant asked. "Really?"
Mr. Menti nodded. "This is better for Iraq," he said. "Iraqi people say thank you."
The sergeant went upstairs to tell his marines, just as he had informed them the day before that the Republican Party had lost control of the House of Representatives and that Congress was in the midst of sweeping change. Mr. Menti had told them that, too.
"Rumsfeld's out," he said to five marines sprawled with rifles on the cold floor.
Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr. looked up from his cigarette. "Who's Rumsfeld?" he asked."
Marines get the news from an Iraqi host: Rumsfeld's out. 'Who's Rumsfeld?'
By C.J. Chivers, New York Times, November 10, 2006
Also, in the Washington Post, James Mann offers "a warning to those who view Wednesday's appointment of Robert M. Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as representing the triumph of Bush the Father's administration over Bush the Son's. Any such analysis is far too simplistic. Gates's nomination unquestionably stands for one proposition: a long-awaited recognition that the administration's war in Iraq has been a disaster. But the broader interpretation of the appointment as representing a victory of Bush 41 over Bush 43 -- or of one school of thought over another -- breaks down when you look at Gates's background and the history of the 1980s and early '90s."
Labels: Iraq
posted by David Wearing at 1:47 PM
9 Comments:
Hi David,
Some interesting reading here.
I am finding it quite strange at the moment with all this sudden turn around in the perception of the real state of affairs in Iraq and the things that the leaders are saying about it. It would be easy to feel vindicated for having always had a strong idea that this was how it was going to turn out right from the start, but that seems too indulgent.
Instead I can feel an opportunity opening to press for greater democracy in the west, notably in the US, whose we know better than thou attitude is what got them (and us) into this mess. The following improvements to the electoral system would increase their electoral turnout, now at a dismal 50% and presumably make their federal govt less inclined to do silly things:
1. remove the electoral college
2. put electoral boundaries under the control of an independent agency
3. enable third parties (other than Republican and Democratic eg Greens)
4. reduce the overt influence of corporate donations on electoral outcomes
I am so peeved at being misrepresented by the self-proclaimed 'leader of the free world' in the Bush misadventure in Iraq that, if I was in a position of power, I would be quite strident in my suggestions/demands that the US undertake electoral reform with some urgency.
Kent - thanks for your comments.
There is indeed an opening here for new ideas and approaches, more of which in my latest post.
Talking about western democracies in general, I agree with your suggestions but would go a good deal further. If we're going to have mixed public/private economies and grant the private sector any significant degree of control over the societal machinery, then the private sector is going to have to be effectively brought under the jurisdiction of the democratic will of the population. You can do that from without or from within, the latter of which is something that people are beginning to look at increasingly i.e. turning democracies from organisations that resemble tyrannies to organisations that resemble democracies.
Its that fundamental tension between democracy and the anti-democratic tendencies of capitalism as currently constituted that's going to have to be resolved if we're going to have governments that represent us rather than elite interests and so do not indulge in imperialist missions abroad.
The tension between democracy and the anti-democratic tendencies of capitalism is part of the yin-yang life balance, but I think in the US it is out of kilter and we only need look at voter turnout rates for evidence, in addition to the recent "anti-democratic" attitude towards the UN over Iraq. By ignoring the UN, the coalition of the willing weakened it as a democratic entity. There may be a relationship between that attitude and the ensuing total mess of decision making. History is dotted with impulsive dictatorial war campaigns that fail.
Anyway, I just wanted to air the idea of the international community putting some effort into trying to promote electoral reform within the US for their own good and for our own safety, so as to avoid future servings of the same kind as Iraq.
You're right to mention low turnout. 59.6% of Americans didn't vote at all, which is a sobering thought for anyone hailing the election results as some sort of revolution.
I think the UN should work to promote democracy everywhere of course. But in the case of the US, it really is the responsibility -the moral responsibility - of its own citizens to sort this problem out.
You said earlier that "if I was in a position of power, I would be quite strident in my suggestions/demands that the US undertake electoral reform with some urgency". Well you could hardly be more empowered as a US citizen with the freedom of speech, assembley and so forth. If you expect people in power to do these things or the UN to somehow step in and reform your country then you'll be waiting a long time, and rightly so. I'm afraid its incumbent on you and your fellow citizens to deal with any problems you perceive in the way your country's governed, just as its incumbent on my to write what I write and generally do something constructive if I don't like how my government's conducting itself.
David, I am not a US citizen.
I disagree. The US has stridently intervened in the sovereignity of Iraq and how it is governed like with many other nations. I think it is time that the world took action against the US with respect to how their regime is run. The gross hyprocrisy of the Iraq debacle is a step too far. A nation with such deficits in democratic representation trying to impose democracy on another country; as if it was possible to 'impose' democracy. It's a catch 22. You can't impose democracy, because then its not democracy.
Americans themselves to a certain extent are 'trapped' within their own system. Those that want change are likely to need help. I see nothing wrong with that.
ah, you're not eh? well, my mistake. apologies
it really depends what you mean. If you think the US can't impose democracy on other countries (the US never wanted to do this by the way) then clearly anything that goes as far as the world imposing itself on the US is going to be hard to justify as well.
if you mean trying to persuade the US to change course as a country, well ok, but there are many is the US who are working towards that already. If you want to know the truth, I think the US left is far more intelligent and serious than the left in Britain: more thinkers less headbangers. So I'm not sure what we could teach them. Is George Galloway going to offer any useful advice to Noam Chomsky?
And in any case, our first responsibility is our own government. You look at your own responsibilities before you look at those of others. I only talk about US foreign policy here to the extent that my government takes US foreign policy as its own, so we're complicit in much of what it does. My concern where the US is concerned is to work to decouple my own country from it.
In the US, they certainly have a problem as regards their state-corporate dominated political system. But in the UK we're facing almost precisely the same problem. That's where our focus should be in the first instance, it seems to me.
We don't have as much of a problem with corporate influence here in NZ. In fact we've always been at the forefront of electoral progress, for instance women's suffrage and we now have MMP like in Germany. MMP is great because it means that the winning party, so long as they don't get more than 50% of the vote, have to compromise and negotiate. They cannot run roughshod. I think from now on the NZ electorate will make sure that no single party ever gets more than 50% of the vote.
I disagree with your comment about the US not trying to impose democracy in Iraq. They have a definite policy/wish of democratisation in the Middle East. I can't believe you can deny it.
I learnt more about NZ history than politics when I was there a few years ago, but from what I understood it implemented Washington Consensus economics in a rather more humane way than we managed here under Thatcher.
What the US and the UK have is definite rhetoric about democratisation. That carriues no information whatsoever. What's relevant is what they do, not what they say. In fact, the US has worked very hard to prevent and frustrate democracy in the Middle East (and elsewhere) and that's a long standing policy that hasn't changed under Bush.
Here's what I've written about Iraqi "democracy". Take a look
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2006/03/iraqi-democracy-and-limits-of-western.html
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2006/08/iraqi-democracy.html
And here's something I wrote about the US "democratisation" drive in the Middle East more generally in a discussion forum the other day:
"Alex - you say "The idealist wing that was in pre-eminence in the aftermath of 9/11 - personified by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton and others, saw Baghdad as the first staging post in a wider battle to install democracy in capitals across the region."
This is a problematic assertion to say the very least. Most of us understand 'democracy' as being where people decide how their countries are governed. Does any serious person believe that this is what the neo-conservatives wanted for Iraq or the rest of the Middle East?
As we speak, Palestinian children are being starved because their parents failed to vote for Washington's preferred candidates in a free and fair election. Do neo-conservatives complain about this? On the contrary, they applaud it.
For another example, take Paul Wolfowitz, arch neo-con and 'idealist-in-chief' who, we're told, positively yearns for democracy to bloom in the Middle East.
When Turkey decided not to participate in the US invasion of Iraq, in accordance with the wishes of 90-95% of its population did Wolfowitz praise this example of popular sovereignty? Did he simply accept this democratic decision and remain silent?
No, he lamented the fact that the US-backed Turkish army failed to play its "traditional leadership role" i.e. stepping in when the civilians misbehave. He also suggested that now it was incumbent on the Turkish government to think of a way to make it up to its offended master in Washington, i.e. to apologise for being a democracy and not a vassal state of the US.
And finally, take Iraq, where elections were only held, after months of US-UK stalling and prevarication, because Sistani brought massive crowds onto the street demanding democracy. And now, when 80%+ of Iraqis want the US and UK out of their country, not only do we remain, but we actually have the gall to portray the failure of Iraqi politicians to order us out (in defiance of their own election promises) as a democratic mandate for us to remain!
Is this idealism? No, its profound cynicism, and it has nothing to do with democracy."
The problem is the Bush doctrine of PURPORTING to be wanting to bring democracy to Iraq, which all their followers in the west lap up eagerly. It is what is being seen to be done that matters. Bush supporters everywhere that I have come across in internet forums swear black and blue that Iraq has been freed and, because of one or two elections is now closer to democracy. You may very well know the reality, but that is not what is being preached by the neocons.
The meaning of 'democracy' is being brought into disrepute, and the Bush doctine has really put a spotlight on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home