Can Democracy Ever Take Hold in Iraq?

Re “Don’t Let Iraq Become a Haiti,” Commentary, Feb. 12: Max Boot makes the point that under U.S. occupation in the 1920s Haiti enjoyed its “freest, least corrupt and most prosperous decade.” He indicated that Haitians chafed under foreign occupation, but he fails to understand that being in the position of the occupier puts any state in the position of oppressor, even if it is providing roads, hospitals and schools. Boot says that the U.S. quit its occupation of Haiti with the onset of the Depression. I assume that this was because President Roosevelt felt that the strained economy could not support the adventure any longer.

Boot makes no mention of how the permanent tax cuts that are currently proposed will, if passed, make it impossible for the U.S. to maintain a long-term commitment to Iraq. He tries to make the case for a long-term occupation of Iraq, suggesting that nation-building can work, but only if U.S. troops stick around. He destroys this argument by pointing out that the U.S. occupied Haiti for an extended period and was successful, but when we pulled out, things fell apart.

Dennis Daneau

Ojai

*

We must not be in a hurry to leave Iraq. Boot correctly concludes that such a move would result in a greater disaster than the upheaval in Haiti.

As he points out, elections do not a democracy make; rather, it is education and the practice of freedom that is responsible for changing attitudes. Until a new generation is taught the structure and value of democracy, and is provided a safe environment and the opportunity to enjoy it, it will not develop a desire to guard it. To be successful, we must remain in Iraq after a new government is elected to assure that those chosen by the Iraqis remain in power to govern.

Aggie R. Hoffman

Los Angeles