After all, we all know that What's Good For The US Is Good For Iraq.

Or something.

It's perfectly clear what he means. The Iraqis can have any government they want as long as it is the government we would chose in their place.

What’s good for Bechtel is good for Iraq.

I admit being somewhat conflicted about imposing basic human rights, religious plurality, and democracy (the notion does seem a little oxymoronic)...but not *that* conflicted.

I wrote about the Potsdam Declaration a few days ago, the terms of surrender for Japan. Section 10 had this to say:

We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion and of thought as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

And what's wrong with trying to establish such things, and insure that the basic structure is sound enough to try to withstand collapse into theocracy or relapsed dictatorship?

There is an inherent conflict between pure democracy (majority rules), and protecting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. I see nothing wrong with Rumsfeld's statement in this perspective (though the Doonesbury toon was pretty funny).

I’m worried about the slippery slope from protecting democracy, human rights, etc. to protecting US interests. If we establish a precedent that we have veto power over Iraqis’ choice of government, then there’s nothing to prevent us from abusing that power — something on which our record is against us.

But I admit I’d be less mistrustful if the whole administration would stop using that aggrieved, are-you-stupid-or-what? tone in press conferences. :)

David writes: I’m worried about the slippery slope from protecting democracy, human rights, etc. to protecting US interests.

Why can't we do both? Why does it have to be seen as a slope?

If we establish a precedent that we have veto power over Iraqis’ choice of government, then there’s nothing to prevent us from abusing that power — something on which our record is against us.

But what if we slapped together a pseudo-democracy, left, and it descended into anarchy in six months? Shouldn't we be held responsible for that?

Don't we have an obligation and a responsibility to do more than just pass out ballots and hit the road?

The question is, which is more important, when push comes to shove? If we put real democracy in place, and the first act of the new, democratically elected government is to tell the US to get the hell out, the second is to sign a bilateral treaty of alliance with Iran, and the third is to cut oil and gas deals with Gazprom and Elf-Aquitaine, what happens then? Do we shrug and say “it’s their country; it’s their decision”? I certainly hope so, but I’d be very surprised; I can’t think of a single instance where we’ve done anything of the kind.

I would hope, instead, that they don't make such decisions. Japan and Germany both eventually became strong political and economic allies with the U.S. I would hope the same would be true for Iraq.

And if we've done a decent job in helping establish the roots of a society which is pluralistic and democratic, this most likely won't happen. These are the things you should hope for...I'd think.

Derek, I think David is simply following that old rule of thumb so useful in war, politics, natural disasters, and new TV shows:

"Hope for best, prepare for the worst."

If the Iraqi people would have had the strength and will to rise up and revolt against Hussein, the US would never have had to get involved. That's how corrupt governments are supposed to be deposed. But now that the US is in Iraq, inusrgents and militant religious zealots had better learned to accept it. The trouble with sucicde bombing tactics is that you eventually run out of people -- or those left begin to see the futility in dying for a lost cause. Even if the US left Iraq today, Iraq is never going back to the way it was. (The Republican Guard and other groups favored by Saddam are the only ones who want to go back anyway.)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.