No Confidence
January 18th 2007 03:43
The Democratic Congress (along with some Republican support) has deemed the increase of troops in Iraq to be counter to America's interests and is making moves to oppose the President's recent decision to boost troop numbers.
This raises in my mind two questions of importance. The first, how much nicer would it be to have a parlimentary system?! I mean if we could dissolve the government and put in power people that enjoyed the support of the general public and of the political elite, well, wouldn't we give ourselves the maximum opportunity to create policy that is likely to be supported and carried out?
The second question, and its by far more important and more relevant is, what if more troops in Iraq is not beneficial to American interests but it is beneficial to the security of Iraq? In other words, what responsibility must the government take, at this point, in relation to the mess it has caused. Though i typically, and maybe hard-nosedly align with the democratic party in the USA, i have to say, i don't know that America is allowed the luxury of thinking only of her own national interest these days. With legitimacy heavily challenged, and acceptence of American hegemony begrudging, denying the importance of cleaning up the mess you made can arguably have negative consequences far greater to America then the increase of troops by 25,000.
Are the Democrats missing this crucial element? Because they were opposed to the "mess making" in the first place have the forgotten the obligation that intervention incurs upon the intervener? Usually I credit the Dems as being forward-looking, trendy, progressive. Usually I'd say they've got their finger on the pulse of the forward-looking, the trendy, the progressive, but I am afraid that if they are able to counter moves towards increasing Iraqi security (though, of course, 25,000 troops probably won't be able to increase Iraqi security) they run the risk of being labeled self-interested and short-sighted.
This raises in my mind two questions of importance. The first, how much nicer would it be to have a parlimentary system?! I mean if we could dissolve the government and put in power people that enjoyed the support of the general public and of the political elite, well, wouldn't we give ourselves the maximum opportunity to create policy that is likely to be supported and carried out?
The second question, and its by far more important and more relevant is, what if more troops in Iraq is not beneficial to American interests but it is beneficial to the security of Iraq? In other words, what responsibility must the government take, at this point, in relation to the mess it has caused. Though i typically, and maybe hard-nosedly align with the democratic party in the USA, i have to say, i don't know that America is allowed the luxury of thinking only of her own national interest these days. With legitimacy heavily challenged, and acceptence of American hegemony begrudging, denying the importance of cleaning up the mess you made can arguably have negative consequences far greater to America then the increase of troops by 25,000.
Are the Democrats missing this crucial element? Because they were opposed to the "mess making" in the first place have the forgotten the obligation that intervention incurs upon the intervener? Usually I credit the Dems as being forward-looking, trendy, progressive. Usually I'd say they've got their finger on the pulse of the forward-looking, the trendy, the progressive, but I am afraid that if they are able to counter moves towards increasing Iraqi security (though, of course, 25,000 troops probably won't be able to increase Iraqi security) they run the risk of being labeled self-interested and short-sighted.
| 27 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
