A WSJ op-ed on how Neocon thinking is shifting on Iraqi "Democracy"

[non sociopath skin]

A VERY revealing editorial from the WSJ.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007075

…. Yet the Iraqis are where we want them to be: divided on critical matters of politics and faith, but still determined to resolve their differences through a binding written compromise. Their discussions are hot and sometimes intractable because all the parties know these debates matter. Federalism and the political role of Islam--perhaps the two most troublesome subjects--are critical issues throughout the Middle East. No one in Washington should want these debates toned down or curtailed.

Many in America may not like the outcome--liberals are already overwhelmingly defining Iraqi democracy's success by whether women's social rights are protected and advanced--but the deliberations foretell what is likely to happen elsewhere in the region as it democratizes. Contrary to so much commentary in the U.S., it is the compromises--the liberal "imperfections"--in Iraq's experiment that may have the most positive repercussions in the Middle East.

"liberals are already overwhelmingly defining Iraqi democracy's success by whether women's social rights are protected and advanced" – the clear implication that conservative’s AREN’T defining the success of Iraqi “democracy” by that.

The whole article is redolent of what the Neocons’ fall-back position is – a Western-friendly Theocracy, or Theocracies.

The Skin

[bluestateguy]

1. Saddam was hardly a hero to western feminism

He was a dictator, and women don't ever fare well under dictatorships.

Still, compare Saddam's regime to the other Middle Eastern dictatorships and you'll find that his Iraq gave more freedom to women than other Middle Eastern states, maybe save Egypt.

Now matters will clearly be worse for Iraqi women, as well as Christians.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. ssshhhh

don't bring up the Christian angle, please. The neocons have to keep that little secret quiet so they can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the fundamentalists.

[puddycat]

3. women traditionally haven't fared well under any form of government

Despite the fact that the USA is a Republic and representative democracy, women didn't fare particularly well during most of its history, and even now the march is on to reverse women's rights.

My own research reveals women were pretty well off under Saddam, at least when you compare it to other nations in the region--they were not restricted to Sharia laws, they were free to get educated and did. Dictatorships are not necessarily bad, especially when one considers the options--of Islamic rule. Democracy can mean tyranny, and I'm tired of the word being bandied about like its automatically a "good" thing--for example, under our "democracy" minorities were suppressed, legally, for 2 hundred years.

[glitch]

5. Very good point, and love your sig. But democracies have the potential to

evolve. Which is why in our "democracy" it is no longer legal to suppress women and minorities.
Who was it that said (paraphrasing) it's a lousy system, but it's better than the alternatives. Dictatorships can be benign, but that can also be brutal. One of their biggest problems is they don't have a mechanism for course change.
Representative Republics and Democracies do.

[KoKo]

4. Oh...How they always rationalize their failed "Dreams of Glory."

May they find what they've wrought comes back to visit them forever.