History's Burden in Iraq

Each passing day, the news brings fresh evidence of the failure of the Bush policy in Iraq. In light of the region's history, this failure was probably inevitable. The fact is that there is no nation called "Iraq" in the sense of a coherent society with stable boundaries, shared values, a common history, and a government with a monopoly on the use of force. The place we call Iraq was created by British imperialists after WWI by drawing straight lines on maps bearing little relationship to the realities on the ground.

It may well be that the populations in the area encompassed by "Iraq" -- Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and others -- can be held together only by a dictatorship such as the one Saddam Hussein imposed. It may well be that "Iraq" should be divided into several independent areas. But that is not a decision for the United States to make. It can be made only by the people who live there.

Most of the violence that American officials attribute to an "insurgency" actually appears to be the early stages of a civil war. Many people in the area called Iraq seem intent on waging war on each other. In a sense, they are entitled to do so, and our presence only prolongs or distorts the efforts by the inhabitants to work out their own destiny.

President Bush can rightly claim credit for toppling a dictator. His attempt to do more, however, has led to a tragic episode of over-reaching, as the British, French, Ottomans, Persians, and Russians all found out years ago.

For further reading, see: David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace," which covers the fateful years 1914-1922.

Buying an election?

As the Boston Globe recently reported, Chris Gabrieli, a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for governor of our state, has already spent about $7.5 million in his campaign thus far. That is a large amount of money.

To put it in some perspective, consider the size of the universe of voters he is trying to reach. According to the Massachusetts secretary of state, the entire number of Democrats who voted in the last primary election for governor, in 2002, was 746,190.

Having spent $7.5 million, Gabrieli's spending per voter works out to about $10 -- provided, of course, that he wins every Democratic vote, which seems unlikely, and provided that he spends no more in the next few weeks, which also seems unlikely.
If this were an auction, we'd have to ask: will people vote for him at $20? How about $50? Anybody go $100?

Oh, but wait: Buying votes is illegal.

Isn't it?