then why did we invade Iraq?
A few weeks ago, the nation was debating whether or not the USA should allow the sale of terminals in 6 major US ports to the goverment of the United Arab Emerates. The backlash of this "under the table" deal (the pres. was unaware of it until just before defending it to the press) was swift and severe. The issue found common ground between those on the left and those on the right. Everyone except those who blindly follow the administration despite anything.
Eventually, the deal was killed, much to the dismay of the administration and it's supporters. They contended that the Dubai goverment was a great friend who could be trusted. This despite 5 years of anti arab rhetoric, thinly guised as patriotism.
We were told that the UAE was all about the west, and emulating our capatalist structure. Security was not an issue with them.
Well, if that is the case, why invade Iraq? Wouldn't a better strategy to have been to support this great friend. After all, the alleged purpose in Iraq is to create a beacon in the middle east that would cause other Arab goverments and societies to adapt and modernize with the rest of the world.
But we never heard word 1 about the UAE before Febuary of 2006. In their Iraq rhetoric, the administration contended that Iraq needed to be liberated so the rest of the Arab world could be shown the way. Wasn't the UAE on their way?
I am curious to as why in Bush's speeches, a line like "When Iraq is liberated, they will be more like the UAE, who is moving in a positive direction driven my a market driven , capatalistic economy. " No, we were told they would be the 1st.
Dubai, it's commerce with the west, or anything was never mentioned as we were given the "arabs and muslims are our enemy" rhetoric. Now, when it serves their friends purposes, the UAE is exactly the kind of country we are trying to create in Iraq.
It would be funny if thousands hadn't died over this convenient rhetoric.
But what about "democracy?" Are they a democratic form of government? One look on a UAE website answers that question, well sort of,,,yes and no.
They are not a democracy like us. But, on the other hand, they do enjoy their own kinds of "direct democracy" as they put it. The seeds are there, and have been fed by the economic growth any new country needs to be successful.
Their constitution (ratified in 1971) states this...
The United Arab Emirates has been established as an independent state, possessing sovereignty. It is part of the greater Arab nation. Its aim is to maintain its independence, its sovereignty, its security and its stability, in defence against any attack on its entity or on the entity of any of its member Emirates. It also seeks to protect the freedoms and rights of its people and to achieve trustworthy co-operation between the Emirates for the common good. Among its aims, in addition to the purposes above described, is to work for the sake of the progress of the country in all fields, for the sake of providing a better life for its citizens, to give assistance and support to Arab causes and interests, and to support the charter of the United Nations and international morals.
Wow, sounds kinda like what we want in Iraq, doesn't it? The page also goes onto state...
Traditionally, the ruler of an emirate, the sheikh, was the leader of the most powerful, though not necessarily the most populous, tribe, while each individual tribe, and often its various sub-sections, also generally had a chief or sheikh. Such rulers and chiefs maintained their authority only insofar as they were able to retain the loyalty and support of their people, in essence a form of direct democracy, though without the paraphernalia of western forms of suffrage. Part of that democracy was the unwritten but strong principle that the people should have free access to their sheikh, and that he should hold a frequent and open majlis, or council, in which his fellow tribesmen could voice their opinions.
Again, wow...not like us, but it does seem that all Arabs aren't living under tyrants who are plotting our destruction supposedly.
They go on to say...
In the majlises, for example, it is possible to hear detailed, and often heated, discussions between sheikhs and other citizens on questions such as the policy that should be adopted towards the evolution of the machinery of government, or the nature of relations with neighbouring countries. On matters more directly affecting the individual, such as the highly relevant topic of unemployment among young UAE graduates, debates often tend to begin in the majlises, where discussion can be fast and furious, before a consensus approach evolves that is subsequently reflected in changes in government policy.
Sounds like something other than a tyranical dictatorship to me. But weren't we told that these countries didn't exist, therefore, we needed to cause "regime change" to show the Arab world how a proper goverment is run. Why didn't we just spread the word about these fine folk? Wouldn't that be a seed that would flourish and spread throughout the arabic world?
Maybe our invasion of Iraq spurred this move towards democracy, freedom and a market driven economy? Oh yeah, they wrote their constitution which has been the basis for their successes in 1971.
Why did we invade Iraq again?