> I'm over my limit, but I will jsut add this to me
> self-evident explanation: if the US "helped" it would
> impose its made-in-Triangle Park or Bremer's office,
> etc., model over the will of choices of the Iraqsi,
> and that would be undemocratic. You don't care about
> this; thsi is an old disagreement between us. But,
> moreover, on pure Millean grounds, there is no such as
> a benevolent dicatorship, and any settlement
> temporarily imposed by the US will be in the interests
> of the US,a nd more narrowly of large corporations,
> such athe illegal privatization initiatives already
> afoot. And will certainly not benefor the Iraquis. I
> mean, the US is the country taht not invaded Iraq on
> fraudulent intelligence and a pcck of lies, but
> installed Chalabi,a convicted fraudster, as the
> supposed leader. Get real, Luke. Finally, if the US
> hasa large hand in getting things set up, itw ill
> offer spurious legitimacy for thsi sort of
> international piracy. You knew I was going to say
> thsi, so why did you ask?
Maybe I should do this without invoking a hoary historical analogy, but that would make my job much harder. The startlingly quick transition of Germany from the shambles of a smashed fascist state to a social democracy worthy of emulation probably couldn't have happened without US help. Does that make it any less of an accomplishment? Of course, the Bush administration is not the Truman administration, and Iraq is not Germany circa 1945. Consequently, one might well think the odds of a decent outcome (i.e., in this case, an "Eastern European-type bourgeois democratic") are dim. But _if_ we do see such an outcome, it'll be a triumph no matter who puts it together (and clearly Iraqi democrats will have to play the biggest role--but they'll probably need lost of international support as well, preferably through the UN).
-- Luke