Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 | Posted in Politics | No Comments »
Thomas Jefferson said “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
That is the risk of Democracy — that ignorant people will use it to promote values of intolerance.
Remember that Hitler, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad were all elected. Although the quality of those electoral processes was inarguably bad, they were still nominally democratic processes.
What is the solution to the problem of democracy? The solution is a good set of basic laws which cannot be turned to serve the whims of any group of citizens — no matter how large a political majority they hold.
As Horatio Seymour said “The merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it.”
Law too, much be kept in check. Law can limit freedom as much as it can protect it. The rule of law and the rule of democracy have one thing on common — rule. They both involve a concentration of power and that concentration of power can be used for good or for ill.
I am in favor of individual liberty. However, individual liberty cannot prosper without the rule of law. Anarchy quickly devolves into criminal oligarchy. Individual liberty requires a minimal rule of law to ensure that each citizen is able to safely enter into commerce with other citizens.
Individual liberty does not, on a theoretical level, require democracy. It is theoretically possible that a single ruler could provide law and order while restraining themselves from meddling into the affairs of their citizens.
History, however, shows us that human nature prevents this from working. Power concentrated is power used. Every ruler tries to improve his country and his people, and each has created only failure by his efforts.
Democracy has the best track record of any form of political organization, but it is far from a panacea
As Roberty Heinlein pointed out “Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?”
For more on democracy, visit our Quotes on Democracy page.
The Associated Press, via FoxNews, reports that a group of village elders in Hyderabad Pakistan ruled in January that, in payment for a sixteen year old poker debt created by her dead father, 17 year old Rasheeda Umrani was to be forced into marriage to one of Lal Haider’s sons.
Most of Pakistan is still ruled by groups of village elders who decide all cases by tribal law — most of which is based upon the Islamic Koran.
Officials in Pakistans central government are constantly attempting to correct the most dangerous decisions of these tribal courts, including one case where a woman was sentenced to be gang raped because of crimes her brother was charged with.
But I have another question. Who is this son of Lal Haider? Who is this fellow who is so despicable that he would take a wife like this? Does he have no self-esteem? Is he so ugly, stupid, and ill-mannered that this is the only way that he can get a wife?
I wish that fellow had Internet access just so that he could read this post. Heck though — if he could read he could probably get a wife of his own.
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 | Posted in Politics | No Comments »
The following is a guest editorial by SPC “Doc” Shurley of 2/5 Cav, 1st CB who is currently stationed in Iraq.
An American Soldier’s View of Problems in Iraq
The following is an article about Bush’s National Address about troop increase. I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here.
I’m tired of hearing the media’s skew version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things they know NOTHING about!
I’ve been over here several months now, and I’ve learned more about this country than a year’s worth of watching CNN. I’ve sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Sheiks, played with the kids, and I agree with the President, that “we need more troops and we need to take greater action.”
There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check.
The Kurds are Christians and in the vast minority. Everyone hates de Kurds!
The Shiites received the brunt of Saddam’s murderous tyranny.
Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad .
The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what any young man would do.
They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus, the country sits on the brink of civil war.
But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops.
The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. The biggest problem down here isn’t the insurgents. It’s the politicians.
About the local politicians:
Even though the country is controlled by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqta alSadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says.
Think of it, as if a warlord controlls New York and blackmails the President into diplomatic immunity.
When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City ) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq .
The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so, but when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city.
But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in because the Prime Minister won’t let us. Our hands are tied!
So, where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq .
Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here, and they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs.
Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose.
Al-Sadr will get to “run” the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to do, and Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism hypothetically! Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain.
The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding. “Bravo” to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq .
So, how do the Iraq people feel about everything? Of course, they don’t want the Americans here, however, they would far rather have us here than the Iranians.
My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the Sunni Militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying.
The village elder’s granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation. The people want peace!
The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician’s clothes (which is what al-Sadrwill become). And the Sunnis especially don’t want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqies will die if this happens.
These are the words that came out of the elder’s mouth:
“We do not want Americans here. Americans do not want to be here, but Americans cannot leave now, because the Shiites’ Militia will control the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the Shiites’ Militia. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave.”
What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community is that the Iraq’s Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered.
If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So, hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy.
A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this, and the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago:
Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don’t want soldiers dying over here, but it’s better than American civilians dying over there.
DO NOT forget 9/11. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again, and the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all.
The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. Americans are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.
This is reality and learn to live with it. America has to take a choice, and the ball is in your court!
Feel free to share this with whoever wants a real soldier’s opinion about the war.
– SPC “Doc” Shurley, 2/5 Cav, 1st CB
Tuesday, February 20th, 2007 | Posted in Politics | No Comments »
Islam is not the direct cause of terrorism in our world. Yes, the vast majority of terrorists are Islamic. However, there are also hundreds of millions of Muslims living in peace on this planet.
The Muslim world, however, is a disaster. It is politically, economically, and socially backwards. It is hundreds of years behind Western civilization by almost any objective standard.
Hundreds of years ago, this situation would have been acceptable and would not have led inevitably to conflict between civilizations. The communications revolution changed all that. The glaring lights of modern Western civilization are now shining into every corner of traditional Islamic civilization. Islamist fighters are not fighting to destroy Israel, they are fighting to destroy Hollywood. Hollywood is, unwittingly, assaulting traditional Islamic values in every corner of the globe.
Peaceful Revolution and Islam
Over the last few hundred years, Western civilization has evolved from a system dominated by a central church and characterized by extremely limited personal freedoms and stagnant economic growth into a dynamic cultural environment where people of all faiths enjoy a wide range personal and economic freedom.
Why then has not the Islamic world enjoyed a similar evolution?
- Muhammed taught very clearly against changes in the religion and the culture. By comparison, the Christian New Testament is much more open to interpretation and moderation.
- Jesus was a preacher; Muhammed was a warlord. Muhammed taught that the best way to enforce the rules of Islam was by force. Jesus never had an army, so he taught his followers to use peaceful methods. Peaceful methods are simply not as effective at resisting change as violence and intimidation.
- Totalitarian governments resist change. The vast majority of Muslim countries are led by totalitarian regimes. The leaders of these regimes enjoy the wealth and power provided by their positions and naturally resist any form of change which could threaten their status. Remember that most deposed dictators are executed and you will understand why resistance to change is so critical to these people.
President John F. Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” The combination of repressive religious, political, and cultural factors has made peaceful revolution in the Islamic world impossible.
And yet, the new closeness of these two very different civilizations creates inevitable conflict not just between the civilizations — but within Islamic civilization itself. Many groups in the Islamic world look at the fruits of Western civilization and desire to bring them to their world. This causes extreme discomfort for Islamic conservatives and the powerful elite of Islamic society, who feel that all change must be permanently stopped. Personal freedom may be considered a nuisance by some in Western civilization, but these people see it as dangerous and highly contagious.
What is the easiest method for these people to freeze change in their own societies? It is to focus the will of the people on an external enemy. For Hitler and Goebbels, this external enemy was the Jews. For the leaders of the Islamic world, this external enemy is Western civilization.
These Islamic leaders fund religious schools which teach youth that the greatest goal they can have in life is to die while killing non-Muslims. They utilize the power of their positions to funnel money and arms to terrorist organizations. They protect these organizations from legal prosecution as long as the terrorists do not challenge the rule of the state.
The End Result
Terrorism is a result of conflict internal to the Muslim world. The Western world has limited options in dealing with the threat of terrorrism. The Western world, however, is not completely powerless to combat terrorism. These Islamic leaders are not stupid. They must be shown that it is more dangerous for them to support attacks on Western targets than it is for them to deal directly with internal change. This can be accomplished by punitive actions in response to any terrorist incident.
In a later article, I will discuss how to discourage terrorism from non-state actors.
