Sen. McConnell—like Sen. Hatch—can occasionally bust out with some amazingly common-sensical observations.
Here are my admittedly harsh thoughts on the Iraqi government’s inability or unwillingness to self-govern. I think a fairly analogous comparison—at least for my crude purposes—can be made between the Iraq of 2003 and the thirteen British colonies in America circa 1775.
When America banded together and rebelled, we took on the world’s only superpower, and with some much-appreciated help from the French (which no one would assert came anywhere near the level of military support we’ve provided the Iraqis), we overthrew our colonial masters and set about the task of creating our own form of government.
Here, Iraq didn’t (and hasn’t) taken on anybody to gain their freedom—we did it for them instead. I fail to see how (save for the all too sad reality of tribal and religious loyalty trumping nationalistic identity), if the U.S. was able to take on and defeat the world’s lone superpower, Iraq can’t seem to manage their own affairs even when their country is handed to them on a silver platter.
Hate to say it, but I think our own experiement in Democracy is a fair standard to hold another sovereign to, particularly when it’s been our blood and treasure securing that sovereign’s freedom. Thus far, and probably from here forward, the Iraqis appear to have a greater interest in sectarian and tribal p*ssing contests than in establishing a viable and safe State for themselves.
If we did it against Britain at the height of its world dominance, Iraq can certainly do it against the pathetic likes of Iran and Syria.
Thx to our Soldiers in the field (and Reuters)