Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Iraq's "puppet" sovereign government? What do you want?

To whom am I speaking? If you think it's to the so called puppets, you're mistaken. I am addressing those alleging that the interim government is a puppet regime.

The basis for the animosity held for the interim government probably varies. It ranges from CIA connections to not being popularly elected, and those reasons and the ones in between are understandable from a nationalistic perspective, if one is Iraqi or empathetic to the people of Iraq. And it may be that Iraq's interim leaders are all marionettes, or at least partially so. But it's possible they are not, and would take the coalition (primarily made up of U.S. forces) in to help with security of their own volition. I will not bother myself with which is the case, though I do confess to a lean towards puppet regimes because of distrust in the non manipulated (free) development of the Iraqi government. To be frank, I'll not be surprised if we have to fight, or are told we should, against the interim PM of Iraq in 4 months. But I'll not dwell on long term negatives pertaining to individuals, statements that might be seen as an assault on those individuals' character.

Animosity towards the installment of the government is mostly tied in with empathy toward those whom must fall under the governance of the "puppets" and the belief that coalition forces are being misused, diverted from Afghanistan and where ever else. And I will not challenge the morality nor the strategic soundness of those contentions by themselves.

What I want to know is this. If you believe that a, the occupation is wrong but the forces of the occupiers have to stay to maintain security, and because of moral obligations from the war leading to the security problems; b, that the prolongment of foreign presence, at least in the direct role of leadership, or as the "behind the scene true" leaders, is wrong but acknowledge the people of Iraq must contend with an imperfect, in other words, a pseudo or non democratic government (as all are regardless of the circumstances under which they are chosen) as a consequence of early soveriegnty, as well as the foreign military forces that must sustain it until Iraq's own forces are ready to take over all matters of security, then, accepting the charge that the interim government is a puppet legitimized by the coalition's might more than anything else, and if you accept all of the above as pragmatically necessary; morally obligatory; then it is fair to ask, moral notions on conduct leading to the puppets installment and said installation aside, what good does your criticism do? Are comments that serve to weaken the interim government that you may even believe is the best compromise beneficial to the people of Iraq? Even if you think I am leaning far too presumptuously as to your beliefs, my question remains, to what goal do you blast the Iraqi interim government?

My hope is that it is not a matter of pride, that of the need to validate within yourselves a perceived moral superiority by willingly, I presume out of sincere belief, pronouncing the interim government lacks credibility and perhaps integrity. But that is because you forsee a benefit to your claims. If the latter is the case, when and how will the Iraqis benefit? You might claim the end of the coalition presence is the greatest gift of all. I ask that you answer sincerely, not with disingenuous beliefs and hypotheses.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click