The cries for a legitimate and functioning government in Iraq are for one reason. That reason is, that without one the US can not hope to succeed as conqueror and occupier. Bush, being an imperialist and an idiot, crushed the state there which offered him his only real hope of success.
A look at history will show that successful occupation requires that the conquered state be left intact, subjugated to the will of the conqueror and able to suppress the "conquered" peoples. The reason for this is that people generally are under the delusion that their state is legitimate and so they will submit willingly. But a foreign invading state? The primary reason Iraq has proven such a problem is because we destroyed the Iraqi state.
Further, the worst losses to the Iraqi people were suffered while their state apparatus was intact. This is due to the irrational idea that a people are one with their state. Therefore, there was less moral outrage at the killing of civilians before Saddam was considered ousted. The Iraqi people were then merely an extension of Saddam. Now that the state is gone, though, that connection and rationalization can no longer be made.
Rather than serving as protector, the Iraqi government endangered the people of Iraq and once that government was scattered the defenses of the Iraqi people improved.
It should serve as answer to those that demand that at the very least, a large state run military is necessary to protect from foreign invasion.
A look at history will show that successful occupation requires that the conquered state be left intact, subjugated to the will of the conqueror and able to suppress the "conquered" peoples. The reason for this is that people generally are under the delusion that their state is legitimate and so they will submit willingly. But a foreign invading state? The primary reason Iraq has proven such a problem is because we destroyed the Iraqi state.
Further, the worst losses to the Iraqi people were suffered while their state apparatus was intact. This is due to the irrational idea that a people are one with their state. Therefore, there was less moral outrage at the killing of civilians before Saddam was considered ousted. The Iraqi people were then merely an extension of Saddam. Now that the state is gone, though, that connection and rationalization can no longer be made.
Rather than serving as protector, the Iraqi government endangered the people of Iraq and once that government was scattered the defenses of the Iraqi people improved.
It should serve as answer to those that demand that at the very least, a large state run military is necessary to protect from foreign invasion.
