This news "analysis" appears on the front page today.
Two years ago, as the U.S. planned to march into Baghdad, many in the Bush administration had a vision for Iraq's first freely elected government in decades. It would be a pro-U.S. regime that would support American military bases, embrace U.S. businesses and serve as a model for democracy in the region.Now as Ibrahim Jafari seems certain to become Iraq's new prime minister, the U.S. faces the prospect of dealing with a government whose views may be closer to Tehran's than to Washington's. And U.S. officials are left wondering how many of their assumptions will prove true.
Apparently the L.A. TImes really does not understand the words "free elections" and "democracy." The Iraqis elected who they wanted, not what we wanted (or at least the LA Times believes we want). That is a victory in my book and Exhibit 1 that we were not being imperialists.
If the LA Times, now suddenly worried about the possible ties to Iran, wants reassurance, Allawi is engaging in the political process to form an alliance to retain his position. However, we do not control the government. (I thought that was a good thing).
BTW, pretty quick jump on those "connections" in the LA Times. Call me when they get to Saddam-terrorism links.
I was surprised the LA Times thought Iran was a concern.
Posted by Justene Adamec at February 23, 2005 07:41 AM | TrackBackWell, the LA Times also thinks the American government is too religious, and has a similar problem with recent American elections.
Europe, however, is going to show us the way -- a new Constitution that makes parliaments subservient to interlocking appointed executive bureaucracies.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 23, 2005 01:51 PM (Permalink)Hah. The Bush whitehouse just loves a Shi-ite victory in Iraq (just like you do too, no doubt.) Now they can say that the Iraqi Gov't is being unduly influenced by Iran, then a border incident, and you know the rest of this set list. Maybe JEE-ZIZ will show this time?
Posted by: Roger Smith at February 25, 2005 03:28 AM (Permalink)Are you serious? Billions of dollars and thousands of lives for a war justified on a fraud? No WMD and so "democracy" becomes a fallback rationale--then the Iraquis, pissed off about a U.S. invasion, prepare to put a Shiite regime in place that will enact revenge on Sunnis, prolong a civil war and lead to a closer alliance with Iran. Yeah, that's brilliant.
If the U.S. govt was interested in democracy, they would have supported the Sandinistas, who were popularly elected years after a POPULAR uprising against a (US-backed) dictator. But no, they undermined and attacked a democratically elected government, just as they did in Chile.
To argue that the U.S. is in it all to promote democracy requires incredible naivete and absolutely no understanding of history.
Posted by: Jim Hannon at February 27, 2005 01:29 PM (Permalink)Ten years from now, when the rest of the world tries to take credit for the newly democratic and prosperous mideast, Jim Hannon will still be whining about Chile.
I bet he's a real hit at cocktail parties.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 28, 2005 09:06 PM (Permalink)