![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Car bombers struck the international Red Cross headquarters and four police stations across Baghdad today, killing almost 40 people in a spree of destruction that terrorized the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, police and the U.S. military reported.
Whoever did this is completely insane. This is not someone who supports Iraqis. Activists that have been protesting last weekend against the occupation of Iraq have forgot to look at one important issue: if the U.S. leaves right now, who knows who's going to replace them? Do activists think that democracy is going to emerge instantly? Democracy is not "natural" and does not emerge on its own because it's "the best way". Anyone who thinks like that, thinks like Marx who thought that Communism was the natural path of society after capitalism. Society does move forward by default, however, and there is no guarantee of progress for the people of Iraq without a concerted effort for it. Without a strong armed presence right now, this country will slip into a major civil war, or if that is averted, could emerge rapidly into a military and/or religious dictatorship. I agree that the US should never have been there in the first place, but now that they have gotten there, the situation has changed. They have destroyed the power structure there, and they have the responsibility, before they leave, to establish a new one so that Iraqis have a chance to avoid a civil war better inner factions (secularists versus religious leaders, religious leaders against each other...) And the U.S. are actually fullfilling that responsibility! Perhaps they could do a better job, but it cannot be done without a military presence, and the U.S. are the only ones with people out there. I would support a U.N.-lead international presence, but no one at the U.N. wants to go there. The European "leadership" before the war has turned into mush now. I think that Ex-Yugoslavia should be close to our minds.
That is why I think that the occupation, although emerging from a bogus war, is legitimate.
Whoever did this is completely insane. This is not someone who supports Iraqis. Activists that have been protesting last weekend against the occupation of Iraq have forgot to look at one important issue: if the U.S. leaves right now, who knows who's going to replace them? Do activists think that democracy is going to emerge instantly? Democracy is not "natural" and does not emerge on its own because it's "the best way". Anyone who thinks like that, thinks like Marx who thought that Communism was the natural path of society after capitalism. Society does move forward by default, however, and there is no guarantee of progress for the people of Iraq without a concerted effort for it. Without a strong armed presence right now, this country will slip into a major civil war, or if that is averted, could emerge rapidly into a military and/or religious dictatorship. I agree that the US should never have been there in the first place, but now that they have gotten there, the situation has changed. They have destroyed the power structure there, and they have the responsibility, before they leave, to establish a new one so that Iraqis have a chance to avoid a civil war better inner factions (secularists versus religious leaders, religious leaders against each other...) And the U.S. are actually fullfilling that responsibility! Perhaps they could do a better job, but it cannot be done without a military presence, and the U.S. are the only ones with people out there. I would support a U.N.-lead international presence, but no one at the U.N. wants to go there. The European "leadership" before the war has turned into mush now. I think that Ex-Yugoslavia should be close to our minds.
That is why I think that the occupation, although emerging from a bogus war, is legitimate.