John Derbyshire lays down the law for Iraqis. Democracy? That's for suckahs! We'll do what we want to do in your "country", because we're big, you're little, and we can.
I am horrified to find myself agreeing with John "hot 15-year-olds" Derbyshire, but I kind of understand his underlying point. It's not so much that he's arguing against Iraqis' democracy, but that he's pointing out that we shouldn't be propping up leaders who don't support us. If Maliki really wants to show how awesomely independent he is of the U.S., let him attempt to run the county without us. (I'm pro-withdrawal, so really, let him attempt to run the country without us. This is what distinguishes me from Derbyshire; he wants the U.S. to remain an occupying force as long as the U.S. wants; I'm happy to leave as soon as the Iraqis indicate they don't want us.)
Well, this is certainly more intellectually honest than the White House (under Bush or McCain) pretending that we're just helping Our Sovereign Allies in Iraq, but refusing to give them a withdrawal timetable like they've, y'know, asked of us.
I mean, I think that Derbyshire's point goes beyond just not propping up "leaders who don't support us [keeping troops indefinitely in their own country]", and onto "we will actively ignore the leaders of countries we are occupying if they want our troops to do things we don't want to do. And our considerations of what we want to do are solely what's good for us, not Iraq."
I am horrified to find myself agreeing with John "hot 15-year-olds" Derbyshire, but I kind of understand his underlying point. It's not so much that he's arguing against Iraqis' democracy, but that he's pointing out that we shouldn't be propping up leaders who don't support us. If Maliki really wants to show how awesomely independent he is of the U.S., let him attempt to run the county without us. (I'm pro-withdrawal, so really, let him attempt to run the country without us. This is what distinguishes me from Derbyshire; he wants the U.S. to remain an occupying force as long as the U.S. wants; I'm happy to leave as soon as the Iraqis indicate they don't want us.)
ReplyDeleteWell, this is certainly more intellectually honest than the White House (under Bush or McCain) pretending that we're just helping Our Sovereign Allies in Iraq, but refusing to give them a withdrawal timetable like they've, y'know, asked of us.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I think that Derbyshire's point goes beyond just not propping up "leaders who don't support us [keeping troops indefinitely in their own country]", and onto "we will actively ignore the leaders of countries we are occupying if they want our troops to do things we don't want to do. And our considerations of what we want to do are solely what's good for us, not Iraq."
ReplyDelete