Last combat brigade leaves Iraq.

[Dave Gray]

I was actually for it, and am not ashamed to admit it.

Nor should you be.

I wasn't saying that I was against it to say "I told you so" or anything like that.  And I wasn't even adamantly against it -- trying to convince people it was a bad idea.  I just didn't feel right about it.

^^^That should not be a reason to not step in, however.  I wouldn't not give someone the heimlich for fear of breaking his ribs, you know?

It's one thing to provide support to another force.  It's another to go in militarily, yourself.  I think that's the difference, and why the heimlich analogy isn't apt.

One of the things I think (and this is where I might be wrong -- and hopefully, I am) is that you can't GIVE democracy away.  I think that people need to revolt and fight for these ideals themselves in order to cherish it and fully embrace it.  So, even if we instill democracy in Iraq, they will probably continue to vote for tyrants who will erode their civil rights.  I really hope I'm wrong about this.  The way the Muslim world treats women makes me want to puke.

[JVides]

^^^You may be right that we shouldn't give democracy away.  I certainly argue that Cubans, for instance, should have taken up arms years ago, and that if outright revolt ever happened, the US would/should step in to help. On the flip side, consider that our Democracy would either not exist or not be anywhere near 234 years old were it not for both direct (soldiers, ships) and indirect (weapons, funds) assistance that we received from the French.  Sure, they helped as much to spit in the eye of the English as anything, but the point is they actually lent troops to the cause, not just weapons (besides, that way of doing business failed spectacularly during the Cold War). 

As for the heimlich reference, my point is that fear of causing damage yourself should not deter you from doing what is right, unless the damage you will do is undeniably and irreparably worse than what a continued existence under the despot in question would be.  Hence, I wouldn't fear giving someone the heimlich for fear of breaking his ribs when the alternative would be to watch him die.  However, I wouldn't give the heimlick if my name were Edward Scissorhands and the effect of giving someone the heimlich would be to perforate his innards and kill him anyway.  Ugh...this is why I try not to argue by analogy.  See what you've done now, Dave?   

[fyo]

As ugly as it has been, Iraq may someday prove to be a model, of sorts, of how this should be done  (my severe happy goggles are on, I admit).  The fighting got messy.  Getting the government on its feet was and continues to be difficult and expensive.  If it works out, though, that country could be the bedrock upon which future democracies are founded. 

I think Iraq is the model of how NOT to do it.

To strain an analogy, if the typical old-style coup d'état of taking out the leader, is cutting off the head, what happened in Iraq was cutting off the head, along with all the other limbs.

Okay, strained analogy aside, the point I'm trying to make is that "too much" was removed in Iraq. I really believe that the current mess was close to inevitable when the army and basically all government functions and services (including police) were dissolved -- or effective dissolved. It's neigh impossible, and Iraq clearly showed that, to remove all government functions overnight and replace them from the outside. It just doesn't work and the void it created allowed the country to plunge into anarchy.

Additionally, to tie this to Dave's "you break it, you buy it" argument, the more you can keep in tact, the less you are responsible.

True, maybe the outcome wouldn't be PERFECT, but (as Iraq clearly demonstrates every day) there's no guarantee that a complete cleansing results in a perfect outcome either.

In my opinion, the goal of this type of nation building should be to cut off the head (and maybe a few extra heads) and install what would basically be a puppet regime (without trying to hide this) and get some sort of election process up and running ASAP, with some sort of "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" work slowly getting started.

That "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" needs to handle all the subsequent "decapitations".

Yes, I realize that by only making the very top of the leadership responsible, you are leaving in place a lot of people who have done horrendous things. And while I'd love to just replace those from the outset, I just don't think it's possible (as I believe Iraq has shown).

[Dave Gray]

I see your point.

And I agree, in large part, with your analogies to our revolution and help from the French.  But the French provided aid to a cause in motion.  I think that's the difference.  If a group declares their independence against a tyrannical force, and we want to assist (either militarily or through aid) because we believe in the values of that independence, I'm all for it.  I think the French analogy also works well in reverse.  Had we not gotten the point ourselves, where the Colonies' were self-reliant and functioning without need of the English, I bet the French's interference would've caused harm.

There's something about the sacrifices made to earn that democracy that makes the people embrace it.  Otherwise, it seems like another tyrant stepping in and making you adhere to their way of life.

[JVides]

I think Iraq is the model of how NOT to do it.

Don't get me wrong.  By "Model" i mean it in the engineering sense that the first model is improved upon until it is ready for distribution.  I don't mean it should be the standard for nation building.  In some respects, what happened in Iraq was necessary.  In others, it clearly was not.

I think that "decapitations" are, in some cases, the way to go as well.  If a country has a history of democracy or other orderly government, then terminating the current head of state may be enough to restore peace (The fact that the UN would view this as illegal is another matter, as it is illegal to target heads of state [I'm not making that up, right?]).

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Otherwise, it seems like another tyrant stepping in and making you adhere to their way of life.

Exactly, Iraqis who never liked Saddam supported him when the country was being invaded from outsiders.  Not unlike the way our country came together post-9/11 or after Pearl Harbor.  Folks that didn't like W (or even thought he was the legitimate president) or FDR supported the leader of the country when the country came under attack.  

[Phishfan]

Exactly, Iraqis who never liked Saddam supported him when the country was being invaded from outsiders.  Not unlike the way our country came together post-9/11 or after Pearl Harbor.  Folks that didn't like W (or even thought he was the legitimate president) or FDR supported the leader of the country when the country came under attack.  

I was in that camp, until we invaded Iraq.

[Dave Gray]

^ Me too.

I definitely didn't like W on 9/10, and I didn't like him as a leader on 9/12 either, but I definitely had a strong sense of banding together for the common cause.