Inspired by the spirited debating capabilities of Ryan and Sam, I would like to consider this.
If the insurgency failed in stopping them, and public, orderly elections were held, what do you think the outcome would be?
In my mind, Iraq is so incredibly divided and unprepared for democracy that it can’t possibly work. Not only do you have a major religious division with a strong majority and a desperate minority supported by a neighboring country, you have a population still living largely along “tribal” lines, especially outside of Baghdad. If peace were to reign, it would be strenuous. You can be sure that the secularization America has been enacting will slowly be erroded away as new laws are made and Iraq forms its own government. The result may very well be like every other country we’ve f*ed up.
On top of that, any government in place after Allawi will be considered an American puppet government (which may very well be true).
Another position: say a popular election was held, and the voters came to an outcome that elected someone that the US doesn’t want in power - some religious fundamentalist or divisive tribal leader. What would we do?
Another position: Suppose an extremist group got elected to a majority of government positions, and instantly changed the laws to be as they see fit. What would we do?
Another position: Suppose whatever elected Iraqi leader asked the US military to withdraw all forces. What would we do?
Or should some of these questions been asked before we invaded Iraq?
Zagadka: *In my mind, Iraq is so incredibly divided and unprepared for democracy that it can’t possibly work. *
If that’s true, then our elected officials have some explaining to do.
If it does turn out to be so difficult to establish a viable democracy in Iraq, our leaders will definitely owe us an explanation of why they were so optimistic about it going into the war.
(anyone else think this guy is trying to get above the permited number of questions per thread ?! hehe )
I think the divisions you pointed out are the strongest problem for a healthy democracy in Iraq… whatever that may be. Even without these tribal and religious divisions… there isn’t much experience in sharing power which is essential to democracy. Factions might not get along due to power struggles plain and simple.
As for your multiple questions… which can be summarized by “What happens if legal political changes go badly for US interests?” Its hard to say… it really depends on how strongly an extremist party won the election. If it won with a good margin… its harder for the US to interfere. If they win by a slim margin it might be possible to “interfere”. Bush might not be bright… but I doubt he would be stupid enough to openly defy legal results.
There are advantages to letting an extremist party fuck up badly… it makes an example of shitty teocratic government. Naturally with or without US mucking things up.
Democracy in a land where it is acceptable to beat your wife half to death and a blind eye is turned towards “honor killings”? I don’t think so.
However, I’m not so sure that “democracy” really works in the USA, either, look at the 2000 election where the president was actually appointed by the Supreme Court.
Other than the interim government, does anyone have the resources to co-ordinate a national campaign? Does Iraq have much of a functioning national press at the moment?
West Germany? What about
Poland East Germany
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
I think the differences here are that the above people actually wanted democracy, where there is no evidence that I’ve seen that the Iraqi people are even slightly interested in a new form of government that goes against their religion and culture. Add to the equation that back in the good ol’ days, our country, our parents and grandparents, actually were asked to make sacrifices to make the whole thing work. Instead of being asked to ration gas, recycle copper and buy war bonds, my president told me to go to Disney World. If we can’t seem to make the right sacrifices now to win the war, what makes you think that we’ll do any better at nation building later?
Has there ever been a real democracy in this part of the world, other than Israel?
Democracies usually take decades if not centuries of cultural conditioning to work.
Mexico and Egypt both have elections, but these nations would not usually be concerned meeting US standards.
Further, was there a democracy in Japan before one was imposed by the U.S.? Did the Japanese have any history of representative government before 1945?
I suppose it all comes down to your definition of Democracy and your expectations of the end result Zag…and the time frame. Can democracy work in Iraq? Certainly. However, it might not resemble OUR democracy here in the US or in the west for that matter…and most certaily won’t initially in any case. Can it work without the US holding up the nation at gunpoint (to prevent complete collapse)? Certainly not. The US bolting at this point will throw the entire nation (if not the entire region) into the fire IMO. I know this is the fondest wish of some on this board, but I am still puzzled by this as the loss of life will be staggering…certainly orders of magnitude over what WE inflicted on them. How is this a good things? (probably a hijack so treat it as retorical).
You realize Zag that most of the population is inside of Baghdad (or the other large population centers) right? And I assume you know that Iraq was one of the most secular and highly educated countries in the region (before the invasion)…right? I think the tribal lines you are talking about are more prevelent outside the cities or in the smaller towns…and don’t really represent a majority viewpoint anymore. As to the ‘secularization America has been enacting’…Zag, the nation was secular under Saddam. Certainly it was a tyranny…but it was a SECULAR tyranny. Saddam only paid lip service to Islam…and only when he had too for political reasons (like just before the invasion when things were getting dicey for the man).
It doesn’t really have anything to do with the insurgents…it has to do with a peoples willingness to have democracy. As to the answer, those other nations were totally exhausted by the wars they had fought when democracy was thrust on them. Of the listed nations, I actually think Japan makes a good comparison…they were also a nation who hadn’t experienced ‘democracy’ before and were forced to it through conquest…and they have made a ‘democracy’ that isn’t really like any other but is unique to themselves. Something I predict will happen in Iraq…if they get a stable government at all out of this.
Certainly true, but then ANY government elected would be considered an ‘America puppet government’ by those factions that didn’t win. And initially I’m sure the ‘elected’ government WILL be a ‘puppet government’…it will be forced to continue to work with the US for years to come. However, if the process of ‘democracy’ is instilled in the population, and if the Iraqi’s are able to create something that works for them and they can live with, eventually the US will pull out and it will be all on the Iraqi people.
I doubt this will be the case initially. Like in Germany and Japan we aren’t going to let them run someone we find unacceptable…its just not going to happen in this first election. THIS election isn’t about a fully democratic process…its about installing a stable caretaker type government who at least has SOME ties to the general population through election. HOPEFULLY this government will be something that can be built upon so that in the future the IRaqi’s can make such choices. To use the Germany/Japan example again, we certainly have no say these days in who THEY elect…even when they elect governments that aren’t exactly friendly to the US.
Another position: Suppose an extremist group got elected to a majority of government positions, and instantly changed the laws to be as they see fit. What would we do?
Won’t happen initially so why speculate? If it happens down the road then it happens…we won’t be involved anymore and the Iraqi people will have made their choice to embrace extreme-ism.
Won’t happen Zag…not initially. Even if whatever government gets elected isn’t too keen on the US only a complete raving lunitic would ask the US to leave as things now stand. The moment the last US troop left the new government would be crushed…they simply aren’t strong enough to defend themselves right now. Besides, as I said earlier, the initial government elected will be on a short list provided by the US…we aren’t talking a real general election here by any means.
Not really, no. The question that SHOULD have been asked before the invasion is: Is invading Iraq worth the trouble, the cost, and the risk of tieing down so much of our available military?
Guess it depends on your definition of ‘this part of the world’…after all Turkey is a democracy and so is India and Greece (sort of). However, to answer your question, democracies were never IMPOSED into the ME. The European powers that divided up the region into artificial ‘nations’ after the Ottomans folded post-WWI didn’t’ want democracies…they imposed monarchy type governments instead. They IMPOSED monarchies on them at the point of a gun basically. Most of those monarchies are still around today…or have been overthrown in military type coups (or like Saddam did it), or in Islamic revolutions like in Iraq.
How do you explain Japan and South Korea then? They were basically imposed democracies…no?