The linked article is a good encapsulation of what has gone wrong with Zimbabwe in its post-colonialist period. Extremely good, in fact. So good I can't amplify it at all.
Dumb kids? Or what? Remember I was ranting about education in America not long ago? This is another article which neatly encapsulates the issue, again, beyond my ability to amplify.
And so we come to Iraq and democracy. And I think the writer's view is racist. He might as well say, "Well, as we all know, the WOGs are incapable of appreciating the democratic process." Democracy is impossible in Iraq because they're not civilized over there.
We should not, says the article, bother trying to democratize Iraq, because sometimes democracies end up being tyrannies.
Oh, okay. By that thinking, why should we bother to live? We're all going to die anyway, right?
The article lists some current tyrannies: Venezuela under Chavez, Zimbabwe under Mugabe. They were democratically elected!
WTF, dude. Hitler was, too. So were Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini. And Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung claimed democratic victories. Does that mean that democracy in Iraq is impossible?
I honestly don't think it does. The fact that a system can be perverted by evil people does not invalidate it; and there are just as many evil people in the first world as there are in the third world.
The people of Iraq want democracy; I believe that because I've seen the pictures and read the reports of them defying terrorists--who were actively blowing up polling places--in order to cast their votes. The people want it. I doubt they are in any more danger of voting in a dictator than we are: Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to take the 44th Presidency of the United States, and her policies make me nervous at best.
The idea that "Well, we shouldn't bother, because they're too stupid or ignorant or uncivilized to avoid screwing it up" is ludicrous. Set Iraq up with a new government that is a democratic republic. If they screw it up, it's not our fault.
Saddam Hussein, he was our fault; we supported him during the Iran-Iraq war under the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is a common theme for all international relations. But Hussein became a problem later on, when he invaded Kuwait, and we should have cleaned up that mess then. (The same goes for Bin Laden, now that I think of it.)
But articles like this one, always critical of our efforts in Iraq, don't offer any alternatives. Okay, so what we're doing won't work, what do you suggest we do? You can say, "Oh, we shouldn't have done that!" but it's too late and you might as well cry over spilled milk for all the good it will do now--so what do you suggest we do? You seem opposed to the idea of a democratic Iraq, for whatever reason; will a Caliphate work better? Or installing a new "strong man" in Saddam's seat?
I'm saying this because I'm getting very tired of all the people who piss and moan about how "bad" it is in Iraq without learning anything but what the mainstream media (MSM) tells them about it. Recently we learned that the MSM considers the recent seventy percent drop in violence a non-news "beginning of a trend" but an equally sudden increase in violence would be "stop the presses" front-page news. What does this say about what we're being told about Iraq?
I'm not being a Pollyanna about this; I know there are serious challenges to be overcome and no democracy is going to work if we pull out tomorrow. We were in Japan and Germany for over a decade after the end of WW2; right now we've been four years in Iraq.
Democracy will work there if we give it a chance to. But if we insist on going home because of a bloody nose, we're going to leave a worse problem than we found when we got there--exactly the same as with Vietnam.