Huh. Democracy breaking out in the Middle East. Imagine that

First it was Yemen.

Then it was Syria.

Next up was Egypt, of course, against Hosni Mubarak.

Now it's Jordan, whose King Jordan just let go his cabinet.

Democracy seemingly breaking out in all these places in the Middle East and it wasn't because the US attacked them, blew them up and tried to "give them" Democracy.

More than 4,300 American soldiers gave their lives so we could spread Democracy in Iraq.  We've committed the nation to, it's been estimated, 3 trillion dollars and now a huge debt burden.

But maybe, just maybe--and this is entirely possible--Democracy would have broken out in Iraq without the debacle the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz/Condoleeza Rice group selectively took us into.

Iraq has had an undercurrent of protests during and after Saddam Hussein's reign.  With the current examples of citizens rebelling against their governments, it is entirely possible to the point of likely that the Iraqis could and would have brought down their own government.

Sure, it's second-guessing and arm chair quarterbacking but it is an entirely possible scenario.

It is yet further proof I believe, if even in retrospect, that we just shouldn't have attacked Iraq, all those years ago.  (And for clarification, I protested the Iraq War before it took place.)

Links:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_jordan_cabinet;_ylt=AjOSiPYSSaj9bz2VwIGwfkHuOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3Y0NXQ0BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwL21sX2pvcmRhbl9jYWJpbmV0BGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDam9yZGFuc2tpbmdm

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/01/28/if-egypt-falls-syria-must-follow/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/yemen-protesters-demand-change-government

Possible good news out of Iraq

According to a story on NPR, there is word that Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki is "talking tough" and saying he wants all US troops out of Iraq by the previously-set deadline.

Thank you, Mr. Maliki.  We couldn't agree more.

Here's the jist of the article:

It's long been assumed that the withdrawal deadline of December 2011 would be renegotiated — that Iraq might need some kind of troop presence beyond then. But lately, it's looking like the United States and Iraq might have to come up with another plan.

Over the past two years, U.S. troops have remained in Iraq under a treaty between the two countries known as a Status of Forces Agreement.

The treaty is set to expire at the end of this year. But American generals and Iraqi politicians have long hinted that the two sides might reach a deal to extend the deadline — if, of course, the Iraqi government formally requested it.

But in an interview Maliki granted The Wall Street Journal last week, he said the existing agreement is "sealed" — and subject to neither extension nor alteration. Still, he did seem to leave open the possibility of a new agreement.

No, no, Mr. Maliki, stick with the plan.  Throw our butts out.  Have us bring ALL our soldiers home.  You run your country and let us stick with ours.

Hopefully this isn't just a ploy on his/their part to get yet more money out of the stupid Americans.  You know, "Well, we might let you stay a while longer if you'll give us $X million to stay in the meantime--but only for a while..."

And hopefully this means our soldiers can come home sooner rather than later.

Of  course, in the meantime, it also means that George W. Bush's, Dick Cheney's and Halliburton's ridiculous, huge and extravagant "embassy compound" we built over there--the largest in the world--will go to some waste but hey, we knew that when they started building the ignorant thing, didn't we?

Link to original post:  http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132632709/in-surprise-iraq-may-enforce-withdrawal-deadline

Another, new reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq

We're coming up on the 6th anniversary of invading Iraq and fighting and dying there ever since.

And the reasons we shouldn't have invaded have been spelled out before:

--It's against our own national law;

--It's against international law;

--The UN inspectors weren't finding any WMD's;

--Saddam Hussein was cooperating;

--Our invasion of Iraq was totally, completely and utterly unprovoked;

--Our own intelligence agencies--13 of them--advised against the invasion and attack;

--Former President George H. W. Bush himself was against attacking Iraq;

--We had to do it unilaterally and without the world community which made it both costly--in terms of soldiers and materiel--and we didn't have world opinion on our side so it cost us our image, which is not to be dismissed;

--We were all for Saddam Hussein earlier in his career and we traded with him, no problem, while he was gassing his people. We didn't have any problem with it then. It was only later, with George W. Bush and Dick "Lemme at 'em" Cheney that we arbitrarily decided we should attack them without provocation.

And the list goes on.

But here's the real, new beauty today.

Did you hear on NPR this morning that there is a common feeling and thought of Iraqis actually missing Saddam Hussein and the days of his rule in Iraq?

Yeah, and here's why:

--they don't have any jobs

--they can't count on basic services like electricity (ever since we blew them up)

--there's less safety and security

--in Anbar Province, they're disillusioned with "the current Shiite-led government and the local Sunni provincial council"

and more.

Some quotes from Iraqis:

"It is only now that we have discovered how valuable Saddam was to us. People have compared the situation before to the situation now. And then was better."

"Saddam's popularity is back because Saddam gave Iraqis dignity. Now, Iraqis have no dignity whatsoever."

"At the mobile phone shop in Ramadi, owner Abu Mohammed says at least when Saddam was in power, people knew what to expect."

Again, this is another case of the Americans absolutely not being "greeted in the streets with flowers, as liberators", as the Bush Administration promised.

In the meantime, let me mention two statistics, not including what the war is costing us in materiel and dollars:

--The US has suffered 4375 casualties in American Soldiers, men and women and

--We have suffered 31,639 wounded American Soldiers, total, to date

And for what?

So the Iraqis could lament the days they had their own leader, however brutal and barbaric, and we hadn't yet blown them up, put our own soldiers lives at risk and spent trillions of dollars to do all the above.

Do you suppose there are still people out there who think George W. Bush and his administration are going to be thought of in a positive light one day, in retrospect, in the history books?