|
They go to bed at night confident that they are doing the right thing. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
I'm (very) far from being an expert on political theory, but I'm pretty sure that they truly believed that they could easily turn Iraq into a democracy by felling Saddam. Why? Because they believe that "freedom" is the natural goal for all. It's a position based on ideals, not reality. I'm still astounded that they had no appreciation for the power of culture, cultural conflict. One only had to look at Yugoslavia after the end of Tito to figure that one out. But back to deposing Saddam -- they thought that by establishing democracy it would lead other nations in the mid-East to turn away from (militant) theocracy -- thereby making the U.S. safer from terrorism (not to mention facilitating our access to oil). It was doomed to fail from the start, it was incredibly naive and ripe for corruption, but it does explain why they went into Iraq with inadequate numbers of troops and without much of a plan for the post-Saddam era (because they didn't think either would be necessary).
Comparing the naive ideals regarding Iraq with the cruel and corrupt pragmatism of New Orleans astounds me further. Remember, the Republicans are supposed to be about small central government and free-market economy, so they were going to let the area take care of itself as much as possible. Had corruption not been so incredibly rife, it might have worked. Local established construction companies got back on their feet, ready to go to work to rebuild, but they couldn't get the info out of FEMA on how to bid the work. Hell, many complained that FEMA wouldn't even return their calls. The work went to FEMA cronies, out-of-area "storm chasers". (This is secondary overall, however, to the fact that so many of the affected residents of the area were poor, which means lazy and undeserving, to the elite.)
|