What do we think we are?

In response to an article by Lily Mazahery partially entitled "For Whom Was The Mission Actually Accomplished?" I posted a comment a long comment that would probably make some readers think I was some sort of crazy, which I suppose is always possible. However; no matter how 'over the top' you might feel my comment was I stand by the main principle. What right do we as a country have to feel that we can, or even should, "bring democracy" to the world?

Now in all fairness to Lily, the article does not advocate any particular action and at most speaks of the problems as though they were something about which we need to be concerned. But that is my major contention! We don't need to concern ourselves. It is not our right, and is beyond our ability, to keep these folks from degenerating into religious conflict. So long as they keep it within their own borders and pose no direct threat to us we have no right to interfere. That is after all the basis for the whole opposition to the Iraq war. We were lied to about their ability to threaten us. Not misinformed but lied to. Our leaders murdered a couple thousand of our soldiers. A crime for which, unfortunately they will never stand trial. But it is time to get out. In fact it is past time.

Now I admit we had some obligation to Iraq that we certainly did not have to Afghanistan. We had good reason to go to Afghanistan. We did not have a legitimate reason to attack Iraq. But as this article points out the only thing we are left doing in either country now is trying to impose our version of 'how things should be' on them. Neither country is a current threat to us. Both countries have the basic mechanisms in place to run a government. The fact that they are divided by a fanatical bunch of irrationally competing groups is their problem, and we have no right to impose a solution even if we could.

We not only have no obligation to go further with them; we have no right to try.