I too sadly agree, except I think he should have ordered airstrikes weeks ago, and they should be more extensive now. We made a mess with our unjustified invasion in 2003 and we have a moral obligation to use our air power to help clean it up now.
There's a bit of a balancing act that needs be done. On one hand it's desirable (at least from our common point of view) to take prudent action as fast as possible, but on the other it's vital that we have sufficient understanding of the situation to ensure that the correct measures are taken in the proper order at the right time and place. This has one universal consequence, namely invoking hindsight. I'm not being critical of your statement, so please don't take that as such. I too would have rather acted before but I didn't know as much as I do now, and I doubt that is much different for our government. It is the unfortunate result of imperfect knowledge, something which can never be fully overcome. We're human and therefore imperfect, but we took it upon ourselves as a nation to invade and that carries the moral implicit to help on a continuing basis within limits.
I can't think of an example which disproves the neo-conservative thesis that we can use our military to create democracies better than this. In 8 years we were unable to oversee the establishment of a stable democracy. We couldn't even train an army capable of fighting off an insurgency. And now the neo-cons are saying the problem is that we pulled out too early. One wonders how much longer we needed to be there to prove this thesis, until our grandchildren retire?
People routinely comment on religion being the main reason for wars, but I strongly disagree. It has been true on too many occasions, and religion has been co-opted as an excuse, but IMO the major force for war is unthinking nationalistic pride. Others "deserve" to be just like us, and by our natural inherent qualities we are entitled to enlighten them to our superior ways. Of course if we gain access to inexpensive resources or can force favorable trade, well that's our due. Note that when I use "our" I don't mean the US exclusively, but superior powers throughout history. In our case in recent years we feel that Iraq and other countries are entitled to Democracy and others will naturally adopt our way of thinking. Why would they not? We're obviously better than they are as we measure better . Who defines in absolute terms what "better" means? Those who win by whatever means necessary. It's never from the perspective of other people with other ways.
I think it was incredible to most of the Neocons that the Iraqis did not thank us for making war on them thereby causing upheaval resulting in the loss of uncounted tens of thousands of lives. For others with a less parochial perspective it was no surprise whatsoever. I believe a great blind spot in our collective American culture is the insistence on equating democracy to freedom and these are two things are most certainly NOT the same. Democracy in its best form is an expression of self determination. At it's worst it's window dressing, a mere pretense which in reality offers a Hobson's Choice of selected despots. Freedom though? That's self determination. It's living as one chooses, and if that means regular elections or being more comfortable with traditional tribal structures it's their choice, not ours. Where this becomes problematic is with groups like ISIS who would kill those who don't agree with their "better". There right of self determination means the extermination of all other ways. Of course one can (and should) consider that any of this is my idea of "right and wrong" and what is "better", but one needs a moral compass or one drifts aimlessly. Of the choices which exist I like the exercise of freedom which does not harm others and allows them to live peacefully among themselves even if it's not in a way I would choose.
You have a good point about the artificiality of the state of Iraq, that its three ethnic groups will never get along. However, I doubt we could make a democracy out of any of the groups - certainly not the Shia or Sunni - even if each existed in a country without the others. It just isn't in their culture. They'll have to come to it on their own, a long time in the future, if ever.
There are many good things I wish for people there. A freedom to choose their leaders is one of them, but as I've already said, that is not something I believe I am entitled to force on their way of living, and I believe the world would be a safer and better place if this was a more generally adopted policy of those who have real power.
Facebook
Twitter