Other then the violence, what is the difference between the Iraqi gov’t and ours? They both are on break during the hottest time of the year, they bother have cantankerous rivalries and partisan in-fighting, and neither seem to be getting all that much of anything done.
Yet, Democrats here complain about the Iraqi government’s inability to get it together and get busy. To make thousands of years of conflict, which goes back to even before the Prophet (and murderous pedophile) Mohammed, disappear. They have been repressed for decades, with no real opposition. No experience in really running a government, much less a democratic one.
If you look around the world, you find plenty of examples of democratic governments who just do not get along. Governments who have been in place for 50, 100, 200+ years. Yet, somehow, some people expect the government of Iraq to just hit the ground running, all while being slurred and demeaned by the same people, who, surprise surprise, fail to offer any help or concrete, substantive ideas. Go figure.
When it comes right down to it, what has our Congress really done this year? And all without having to worry about murderous scum streaming in to the country and setting off bombs.
There are a lot of problems with the Iraqi govt, but you’re right: democracy isn’t easy and it’s usually messy to boot. To me, it seems that the big milestone to aim for is for the Iraqi govt to be able to establish a monopoly on violence w/in the state. Once they’ve cleared that hurdle, everything else’ll be a lot easier.
Your right: if they can just be given some peace, they can really get their business done.
[…] government negatively is the wrong move. Like with the Democrats, where has Warner been in offering constructive ideas and help to the Iraqi government? Bueller? […]