Can democracy work in Iraq (without the US holding it up at gunpoint)?

Great Debates
41

Things look pretty grim, at this point. The guys who used to be on top (the Sunnis), have always been a minority as long as the Iraq we know has existed. During that time their benefactors brutally repressed both the Kurds and the Shia Arabs and Persians who make up much of the South. Now the Shia can flex their political muscle as a majority, the Kurds still want their own country. Meanwhile the Sunnis are threatening to boycot. An election without the Sunnis is patently illegitimate, but even if they do not cede all control to the Shia, how can a tyrannny of the majority and reprisals be avoided? And what really is going to happen with the Kurds? Will any Iraqi govt. be able to suppress their separatist ambitions in a “democratic” manner?

I really wonder why we don’t just split the place up, quite frankly. Would the prospects be any worse? I think isolating these factions from each other may do more for democracy at this juncture than expecting them all to play nice in a culture that nurses grudges for centuries, so it seems. Once these people get out from under our thumb, or some tyrant’s thumb, I see no reason to think the place couldn’t go Balkan in a few years.

42

You might want to read this article for some good news.

43

The thing is, the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe wasn’t so much imposing a form of government. Eastern Europe were the spoils of war as far as the Soviets were concerned. Oh sure, they’d make newsreels of the opening of ‘Glorious New Tractor Factory!’ but the reality was Stalin just wanted $100 billion squeezed out of them for reparations.

As much as they called us imperialists that’s what they were doing, treating eastern Europe as conquored colonies from which to exploit natural resources. And when the indiginous people complain, send in the tanks and start killing them until they stop.

But that’s not what we’re doing in Iraq. We’re not fighting ‘the Iraqi people’, we’re fighting those who want to return to some form of good old fashioned intolerant, ignorant, brutal and corrupt despotism. You know, your standard Arab government…

44

on the other hand, you might want to read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html?sub=AR

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/111304_war_crimes_in_fallujah.htm

There are thousands of similar stories online - anyone applauding ‘good news’ from Iraq must have very selective vision.

45

I’m amazed no one has mentioned troop strength.

At the end of World War II, Germany and Japan were swarming with Allied soldiers, who were only too happy to impose martial law and stand guard on every streetcorner. It beat living in a foxhole, and it was less dangerous than actual warfare.

Japan had suffered the only nuclear blasts used during a war in history. The Germans were worn down, defeated, and ready to roll over.

…and the Allies marched in with plenty of soldiers to maintain order, prevent looting, suppress any insurgencies, restore vital services, and so on… and the Truman administration promptly launched the Marshall Plan to give these countries something to lose if they invested in an insurgency.

This is not what happened in Iraq. In Iraq, the American President ignored the advice of his own experts, preferring to go charging in NOW rather than wait until the necessary preparations were completed and troop strength assembled…

…and there was widespread crime, looting, and general craziness in Iraq – the natural consequences of war and the collapse of a regime – and we didn’t do a damn thing about it until it was too late. We didn’t have enough troops, and we didn’t have enough allies, and the administration said, “Screw it. Let’s do it anyway.”

Be interesting to see what would have happened in WWII if the Allies had consisted of Britain, America, and a handful of small, easily-influenced countries, and if we’d tried to hold Germany and Japan with a third of the troops that our military had considered necessary to do so…

I think the postwar world would be a very different place, if we’d done that. :dubious:

46

Where you may get some disagreement is on the proposition that there is any difference between the standard intolerant ignorant brutal corrupt despotic Arab government, and that which the average Iraqi Arab (or Kurd, for that matter) wants and likes. It’s not immediately evident how that form of government would get to be “standard” (as it is) absent widespread popular embrace of the mores you (correctly) associate with Saddam’s rule, or that of any successful Middle East ruler I can think of.

Which is what our leaders didn’t bother telling us when they promised we’d be greeted with flowers by the democracy-loving Iraqi soccer moms.

47

ZombiesAteMyBrain: You know, there can be good news AND bad news. The problem we have debating Iraq on this board is that any mention of good news gets berated and laughed at, so you get a distorted picture of what is actually happening there.

Like most places, there are good things and bad things happening. Even if the bad outweighs the good, it’s still important to look at the other side to get a true picture of what’s happening.

It would just be nice if one could do that on this board without the inevitable stream of ad-hominem attacks (not that you did).

48

When the bad things so far outweigh the good, though, and injustice so far outweighs justice, it is very hard to close ones eyes to this imbalance. I am ashamed that my country’s government participated in this train-wreck of so-called justice and freedom in Iraq. Tony Blair knew that the majority of the population here opposed our involvement - but he went ahead anyway. Now what are we left with … supporting a war where the army’s first action upon taking a city is to close down the hospitals - so that information about the number of civilian casualties won’t be released to the outside world. Is this the freedom our soldiers are fighting for?

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20459/

49

this should life some peoples spirits

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/10/good-news-from-iraq-part-13.html

50

This should bring them back down from the rightie dream world to reality.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

51

See, blogs are perfectly acceptable cites as long as they support the left’s bellief that everything is going to hell. But if you cite a blog that has an opposing viewpoint, the screams of derision are deafening. Sometimes people even use your name six or seven times in one post in an attempt to be snotty and condescending at the same time.

Why the blog of one young woman with an axe to grind should be any more authoritative than the dozens of blogs of other Iraqis who are more supportive of the coalition is beyond me - except that she’s telling people like Zagadka what they want to believe.

For example:

Iraq The Model

Healing Iraq

The Mesopotamian

Road of a Nation

Iraq at a Glance

Iraq and Iraqi’s

These people aren’t cheerleaders for Bush. They’re living right in the thick of it (Zeyad at “Healing Iraq” is blogging about a firefight going on right outside his door). But they are generally supportive of what the coalition is doing, want Democracy, and in general are hopeful for the future.

52

Well, seeing as Turkey would probably put a lot of pressure on an autonomous Kurdish state (e.g. annex them if they caused trouble), the Kurds would be inclined to participate in Iraq’s government provided that they had equal access to cabinet positions, business opportunities, etc. (everything the Sunni elite enjoyed under Saddam). If anyone is given “special” privileges under the new government, this will cause problems. Representation through democratic process is a good incentive to keep Kurds participating.

It’s not so regionally cut-and-dry. There would be a lot of blood involved in the Balkanization of Iraq, Baghdad is very mixed. If the objectives are to minimize loss of life and encourage representative government, civil war is probably not the way to go.

53

Sam, I’ll put an asterisk next to the line the next time I’m being sarcastic.

My statement (which you are apparently oblivious to) is that one blog is as good as another.

The relevance of the point of view an Australian rightie warhawk compared to an Iraqi woman is a different story altogether.

Maybe if the Aussie flew to Iraq and lived there for a few years, I might put more stock in what he has to say on the topic. For now, I’ll trust Riverbend and Juan Cole.

Oops, yea, you forgot about him, too. But I guess he’s just a liberal extremist intellectual instead of an expert on the subject to you. Don’t forget your blinders when you go out next.

54

For the record, most of those bloggers are Iraqi, and live in Iraq. But wait, because they actually support some of the initiatives the Coalition is putting forward, they are irrelevant. Yeah, Sam, you’re not the first one to notice.

Is it beyond comprehension that some people are actually so left leaning they’ll do anything to discredit the war in order to prove themselves right? Now I can be sometimes regarded as the same but I tend to be optimistic about Iraq because being pessimistic seems to be self defeating and an endless cycle, I want whats best for Iraqis I admire them alot, they want democracy, they want what we’ve proposed.

55

In the end… what would a working democacy in Iraq prove anyhow ?

That you need US$ 500 billion invasion and occupation with 2k US dead and 15k wounded, plus 100k dead Iraqis in order to create democracy in the Middle East ?

( I agree with Zak… blogs are just blogs. They are not consensus of any sort. Not only due to the elite status of anyone with regular internet acess and money in Iraq… )

56

What would a democracy in the middle east prove? It would prove that democracy is possible in the middle east - something that a lot of tyrants in that region have spent a lot of propaganda convincing their people isn’t true. A free, democratic Iraq will be a wake-up call to other Arabs that there are alternatives to living in squalor while the strongman de-jure collects all the oil money for his palaces and cuts some religious radicals in on the take to appease them. It will offer an alternative to young people in the Arab world - an alternative to militant behaviour and jihadism. It will offer hope. It will put pressure on other tyrants of the area to reform and allow freedom to bloom.

And in the end, democracy is an end unto itself. Even if it didn’t prove anything, at least 25 million people would be able to live their own lives. That’s enough.

Also, we simply have to try. Because if we do nothing, eventually a terrorist attack will be so large that it will demand a very strong response. You think this war is ugly? Wait until you see what happens after a nuke goes off in New York or LA. Or if Iran starts threatening Europe with nuclear attacks. Or if a terrorist launches a chemical or biological attack that kills thousands - and it can be traced back to Syria, Iran, or some other country in the region. Then the gloves will come off - the American people will demand it.

Before that happens, we have to have at least tried to reform the region as peacefully and helpfully as possible. The attempt may fail, but at least we will have tried. It’s the moral thing to do, even if it means overthrowing the tyrants by force.

Because whether you want to believe it or not, the long-term existence of the middle east as the largest collection of dictatorships on the planet is simply not stable. And as long as that collection of dictatorships continues to breed terrorists like flies, it is heading for a gigantic conflagration unless it is helped into the 21st century. We have to try. Or else in 5 or 10 years, or maybe 20, we’ll be talking about millions of dead people instead of thousands.

57

I think it’s not just democratic reform that’s required here, nor is democracy necessarily required to bring short-term opportunity to those populations who feel they aren’t getting a chance to prosper. For one thing, lots of bureaucracies in MENA (and Latin America, and elsewhere) are not set up such that citizens can secure and make use of capital. Property rights aren’t always respected, middle class interests aren’t protected and often take a back seat to elite interests. Lots of small businesses aren’t registered with the government (and so gov’t can’t collect revenues) because it’s just too difficult and/or expensive. No online cite for this, but I believe de Soto does a case study on Egypt in The Mystery of Capital.

So while democracy could ensure that people’s interests are represented in the development of more useful legislation and regulations, some of this could be done without installing democratic regimes first, because these reforms wouldn’t necessarily threaten the interests of current dictators. They would increase wealth and the flow of information, and perhaps cause democratic movements to flourish on their own, adjusted to suit the region/culture. It depends on what the local population is more immediately concerned by, being able to vote or improving their standard of living/having better access to opportunity, capital, etc.

58

Interesting meme you got there. Kinda reminds me of The Leader, when he says that the people who criticize his policies do so because they don’t believe ME peoples are capable of democracy. Can’t think of anybody off hand who says that. Point of fact, such dictators as Saddam do, indeed, pay lip service to the concept of democracy, as witness his most recent election, a 99.9% approval rate, now there is a mandate! So I’m not quite sure where you’re getting this, not that it matters.

I don’t think we mean it. When we say “democracy”, we stop well short of considering its less savory possibilties. To take an absurd example, if the people of Iraq decided they wanted Saddam back, would we let them? No chance in Hell.

But take a less absurd example: suppose it becomes clear to us that a free and fair Iraqi election would install a Shia theocracy hostile to Israel and hence, hostile to America? Would we let it go forward? After all the blood and treasure squandered, could we let such a situation devolve? After all, a thunderous avalanche of mandate landslide here is 51%, the Shia have roughly 60%.

If that came to pass - after all our sacrifice, we install Iran II - The Sequel - peasants would gather with pitchforks and torches on Pennsylvania Avenue. GeeDubya would be lucky to be merely impeached, rather than tarred and feathered and then drawn and quartered.

We will install a strongman. Allawi if he’s got the sand for it, somebody else if he doesn’t. He will have reached an accord with his newly trained military and police. They will be loyal, and well rewarded for that loyalty. It was ever thus.

The people at large, sick to death of the crap they’ve been living with, will most likely shrug and accept it. Oh, there will be some sort of ritualistic display of election, just as before. We will declare it one hundred percent OK-dokey, hand out a bunch of medals, declare victory, and get the Hell out of Dodge.

We want stability,Sam. We don’t give a rat’s ass for democracy in Iraq, never have. We have thrown ourselves headlong into pursuit of a chimera, a mirage: that we would free Iraq, they would love us for it, and transform themselves into a bourgeois Parliamentary democracy made up of shopkeepers, entrepreneurs and Starbucks franchises. An Iraq calm, placid, and amenable to guidance.

Could happen, I suppose. Could also be that the Virgin Mary has manifested herself in a grilled cheese sandwich. That’s less likely. But not by much.

59

Well geez, we already had that with Sadaam. And the people loved it, just look at the exit polls. Tack on the lack of terrorism, the semi-functioning infrastructure, and the tight control of weapons stockpiles, and I’m forced to wonder when you’ll be calling for his reinstatement.

60

Sam Stone

Sam, I don’t mean to be picking on you here, but you seem to keep repeating this mantra of democracy and I really would like you to clarify a few things if you would please.

No one’s arguing that some rulers don’t want their positions of power changed, but who said democracy isn’t possible in the Middle East? In fact, if history is a guide, the west has been one of the most powerful forces for suppressing democracy in the Middle East for the past fifty years (Pahlavi, Hussein, Saud family, etc.). If the west is so concerned with democracy, why did the U.S. return the dictators back to Kuwait instead of holding elections after Gulf War I?
So forgive those of us, and especially Middle Easterners, who scream bullshit!!! before westerners such as yourself can even finish the word democracy. There is no proof of it, and in fact overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Incidentally, for you to posit the notion that the west has to come in with a barrel of a gun to “prove that a democracy is possible in the Middle East” is the height of arrogance and rudeness. Democracy was originally implemented in Greece. That’s not exactly the Middle East, but a close neighbor. I’m sure you weren’t trying to suggest that “those Arabs just don’t get it unless we bang it into their heads”, were you?

They already know this. But if your concern is genuine, then as they say, change begins with the man in the mirror. Don’t you think it’s beyond hypocritical to be buying gasoline when every penny goes to those same despotic regimes? Should your outcry be directed at those who live there and are being oppressed or those around you who have infinitely more choice about the decisions they make?

I just can’t seem to fully understand this one. How does this work exactly? How is it that if Iraq becomes the Sweden of the Middle East that it would force Saudi Arabia to become Luxembourg? I mentioned earlier that there are plenty of countries that surround the Middle East which have democracies. Yet, none of those seemed to have had their democratic tendencies “seep” into the Middle East. Does the seeping effect only work if it’s from the center out?

Then your focus should be securing New York or Los Angeles, not Umm Qasr. Perhaps the ports at Long Beach would be a good place. Or those chemical plants which still have little more than cyclone fencing and a $10 an hour security guard. Or maybe those nuclear power plants like Indian Point which are still fully susceptible to attack.

Why would Iran do that?? Sam, do you have genuine concerns here or are you simply repeating every threat you’ve ever heard? I’m not mocking you, but I have a hard time believing you honestly think A) that Iran would attack Europe for some reason and B) that democracy in Iraq would somehow stop them from doing so if ever they decide they would. In other words, what the hell does that have to do with it?

Absolutely wrong. It’s not up to you. The west is not the Oracle of political systems. It is not up to you folks to decide how others can or should live. What you are saying here is no different than the Islamist saying he must save you from your evil and satanic ways. He truly doesn’t want you to burn in hell, you see. So it’s really for you and your own good that he wants to take away your music, make you pray five times a day, and put your wife under a car cover. Honestly, can you not see your own phenomenal arrogance with such a sentiment as “it’s for their own good.”

I agree. And I would like to offer a few suggestions if I might. The next time Mossadegh shows up, fuck off. Don’t topple him, don’t disparage him and cynically call him “Man of The Year” and topple him. Just fuck the hell off. Next time Nasser tries to protect his country from looting, tell jolly ol’ England and France to fuck off. When Israel decides it wants to occupy Arab lands until is has slowly made it impossible for the Arabs to have any of their land in any meaningful way, tell them to stop. And for the love of all that is decent, park your oversized gas hogs. You can’t be “helping” when all you’re helping are the folks you’re complaining about.