Brand New ARVN Rifle--Never Been Fired, Only Dropped Once

I've seen this on several blogs today, including NeedleNose, who cites Unfair Witness--but I'll also cite Today in Iraq. Yahoo reports that, contrary to my title above, ICDC forces (the "new" Iraqi army) didn't just run away, but instead fired upon US troops during the pitched battle in Baghdad. Ah, just what we need: yet another armed faction. Something tells me that soon, though, they'll be working alongside one or more of the resistance organizations that "just don't get it."

What's really tragic about the whole misadventure in Iraq at this point is the stubborn refusal of ANY politician, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich of all people, to realize that the mission, as it were, is over. There will be no "western-style" democracy in Iraq, at least of the fantasy variety that everyone thinks exists here.

Consider: in spite of having a fairly decent system of electoral democracy and a relatively efficient bureaucracy, is there ANYONE that thinks say, New York City, or New Orleans--for that matter, the Gret Stet itself, or Chicago, or--hell, name the place--runs a perfectly clean government? C'mon.

AT BEST, there was a very small chance that government in Iraq could be formed that was no worse than what we see in the west. But that chance was exceedingly small, and now it's virtually non-existent. It's not that there is an innate level of corruption in the region, at least not anymore of a level of corruption than what we tolerate. But there are so many forces and factors playing into the quest for political power in Iraq (be it local, regional, or national)--along with the fact that NO ONE, least of all the CPA, seems to care one bit about establishing a democratic TRADITION--that I'll bet Bremer would be thrilled if he could form any sort of stable government before June 30th.

The right often seeks to curtail debate by making the choice a yes/no on Saddam alone: "If so-and-so had their way, Saddam would still be in power," or "Are you saying we shouldn't have invaded?" etc. etc. blah blah blah. That misses the point. Right now, the chaos in Iraq is alone enough to create real problems in the long term--see this post over at Needlenose for a more concise point of view--and we still DON'T KNOW who eventually will assume power in the country. Whoever does might be better than Saddam, or might be WORSE--we DON'T KNOW yet. But the idea that everything is now A.O.K. just because the Butcher of Baghdad is sitting in a jail cell is a lot like saying Mission Accomplished when the mission has barely begun. World affairs and international relations are no place for the shallow minded--nor are they any more of a haven for wishful thinking, i.e., platitudes without planning.