Here’s the original snippet by furt (via KidCharlemagne):
“Replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for successful, modernized, liberal democratic Arab state.”
It’s just as likely that “replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for a succesful, modernized, lberal democratic Arab state” can occur as “replacing the Iraqi regime may devolve into internal chaos”. That’s why I used the term “equally”.
Or are you arguining that it’s more likely that replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for a democractic Arab state? If so, then tell me how its more likely than not.
There’s no cognitive dissonance. What I’m understanding here (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that you, furt, and others are implying that it’s a relatively simply matter of establishing some sort of democracy in Iraq. You simply get rid of Saddam and replace it with a democratic form of government (or is it now a constiutional republic?).
Then why go through all the trouble to establish a democratic Iraq, if it conflicts with the wider goal of a democractic Mid-East? If you’re unwilling or unable to do the necessary work that will foster a stable, secure, prosperous Iraq (and this will take lots of time and money, not to mention the political fortitude to see the plan through), then why do it?
Freedom isn’t necessarily a mechanism. Your using the term as if it has some sort of specific quality, that by merely invoking the term or somehow giving it to the Iraqi/Arabs (whatever that may mean), will automatically start the process towards the desired results.
I agree that free people are more reasonalbe to deal with. I just want to see how it is possible to establish such freedom (and democracy) in the Mid-East.
Or not. All the above are examples are based on the assumption of a democratically reformed, stable, and prosperous Iraq. Which is fine. But you haven’t laid out the framework that will help establish and promote a democratically reformed, stable, and prosperous Iraq. If you don’t or can’t do that, then you’re above examples may not come to fruition.
Is the US willing to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq for the next 50-100 years? Are we willing to take on the role of military defense in order for the democratic insitutions to take hold and florish in Iraq? Are we willing to pump untold billions of dollars into the Iraqi economy? That’s what we did (are doing) in Germany and Japan. Never mind that the US in the eyes of the international community had a certain justification for doing so. Never mind that both Germany and Japan were industrial and economic powers prior to WWII (which Iraq has never been and currently is not; its major industry has been focused on one resource - oil). Can we say the same thing for Iraq?
And I hope you are not seriously considering that Afghanistan is a thriving democracy. Democracy in name, yes - but, please. If that’s you understanding of “democracy” then we are miles apart in trying to understand one another.
No - no guarentees. Just some kind of assurance that the policy is being enacted with some forthought. Tactical information (the “mechanisms”) would go a long way in assuring me (at least) that some forethought has taken place.
Well, then President Bush and his administration must be doing quite a bit of praying. Because, while the policy may be an admirable one (and a proper one to implement), the implementation has been (pardon my French) “for shit”. You don’t enact a policy in the hopes that it might work. You want to enact it in such a way that gives one the greatest chance of it succeeding.
Sure, it’s safe bet. But is that what you want to happen? In other words, if you want to ensure that you’re china shop doesn’t have a bunch of hyperactice kids and puppies running around breaking things, what are you going to do?
Which is also true. But, again, is that what you want to happen (a bunch of broken china due to a bunch of kids running around in the shop)?
But the nature of children as it pertains to a china shop is a far cry from the nature of democracy (whatever that may mean). Democracy isn’t a 'thing". It isn’t embued with some sort of magical quality that once ingested, automatically transforms those who have partaken from it.
Democracy, in the sense that I understand it, needs to be fostered and nurished in a multitude of ways in order for it to take hold and grow. It takes the concerted effort of many people over many years. It requires the establishment of the necessary institutions that allows it to become an integral part of a society. It also requires the necessary economic/political/cultural conditions/instutions as well.
Well put... even in some places like Latin America "democracy" has a long long way to go before its solid and real. Even then its not a rock solid thing.
Because they are the 2 ideas which are present in this thread? Is that really the right mechanism to assign probabilistic likelyhoods?
[QUOTE]
Or are you arguining that it’s more likely that replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for a democractic Arab state? If so, then tell me how its more likely than not.[/QUTOE]Because the main blockage of democracy in Iraq was Saddam’s regime. Certainly not the only possible roadblock. But also certainly the biggest one. Without him it is more likely that democracy will be possible than it was with him.
This is the cognitive dissonance I was refering to. A Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. Supposing that they are different in some fundamental way, and especially implying that a republic is not democratic, ignores how they both work.
No, I don’t think anyone has suggested that anything is simple. You may have gotten that idea from a desire to allow Iraqis to have the biggest say in how the government is formed. This sort of desire requires that America do very little in the way of dictating governemtal forms or constitutional provisions. It might make it seem like for the US to have less to do is the same as promising the process will be simple. But it is not.
Nothing UI said suggested that a democratic Iraq would conflict with a democratic Middle east.
I’m not saying anything like this. All I’m saying is that fostering democracy does not imply guaranteeing specific acions by those democracies. However, withholding such guarantees also does not imply that security is comprimised. Quite the contrary.
Then what do you mean by mechanism. I agree that “freedom” is not a specific date qualified plan including named actors. It is however, a generally understood principle which will allow more power into the hands of people in the region. That this increased power will allow them to concentrate on makeing their own lives better instead of hating the west is, perhaps, the mechanism.
Well, speaking as an outsider (the United States) it is not possible to “establish” democracy in the Mid-East in the sense that we cannot impose it. It may be, however, possible to establish democracy in the Mid-East in the sense that we can have a profound impact on the process.
Think of it this way. The French did not establish democracy in America. They did, however, go a long way to helping us establish it.
OK - we’ve gotten rid of Saddam. Now how do we get to a stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq?
How do we help establish a democratic, constitutional republic in Iraq? Keep in mind that the Iraqis do not have any experience with this particular form of government. Also keep in mind that the Iraqi’s might not want this particular democratic form of government. Furthermore, how to we help establish such a democractic constitutional republic that 1) won’t be perceived as being imposed by the US on the Iraqi population either by the Iraqis themselves or the rest of the Arab World 2) helps foster the development of this particular form of democracy in the rest of the Middle East?
So help me out here - is the US going to be significantly involved in shaping the form of democracy that is to be established in Iraq? Or is the US just going to provide the basic framework and let the Iraqis sort things out for themsleves?
If it’s the first, then how does will this new democractic Iraq be perceived throughout the rest of the Middle East? Could it be conceivable that this new democracy will be perceived as a client state of the US, further increasing the humility and hostility felt by other predominantly Arab nations?
If it’s the second, what happens if the Iraqi’s decide to form an Islamic theocracy (via democractic processes)? What happens if the Shi’a demand a greater role in shaping the framework? What about the Kurds? And what about the Sunni?
Security CAN be compromised if a democratic, constitutional republic established in Iraq isn’t sustained over a long period of time. I’m assuming that that’s what part of the policy is supposed to do, isn’t it?
Generally understood principle - for those of us who’ve been enculturated with such a notion. Freedom can mean different things to different people in different contexts.
Increased power - to do what? Freedom isn’t really freedom if you don’t have the sufficient parameters in place. “Freedom” is just a word - it doesn’t really mean anything stripped from it’s context. If your talking freedom in the widest sense possible, then you’ll need to consider a host of factors. Freedom of assembly; freedom to form political parties; the right to vote; freedom of the press; freedom of religion. You’re going to need to establish an executuve, a legislative, and judicial branch of government that’s based on the rule of law (not that of tribe, faction, etc.).
But political freedom is nothing if one doesn’t feel safe and secure to practice those political freedoms; in other words, allow people to pursue their own happiness. The necessary economic institutions and internal infrastructure (educational systems, hospital systems, transportation/comminications infrastructure, utilities, police, military).
This doesn’t even address the social/cultural dimension - one has to have some sense (a worldview, so to speak), that this freedom is somehow “right” and “natural”.
Yes, we can have a profound impact - either for the good or the bad. I’m assuming that you would like to see it for the good.
Well, I’ll assume you are referring the French Enlightenment intellectuals. If so, I would agree that they had SOME influence. But there were other Enlightenment intellectuals (from the UK) that I would argue had an even greater intellectual influence (John Locke and his influence on the founding fathers comes to mind).
But the French did not DIRECTLY help the US establish a democracy. The French didn’t unilaterally invade the US and imposed a form of democracy on us. We did it ourselves. We were the first nation to successfully overthrow the old order and establish our own form of democracy.
Likewise, the French had their own revolution a bit after we did. One could argue that OUR sucessfull revolution helped pave the way for other successful revolutions replacing the old order to take place as well (I personally would need to see a good argument here to be entirely convinved). But the US was not directly involved in establishing the Republic of France. Our ( the US’s) revolution wasn’t the mechanism that triggered the revolution in France and helped establish the new order there.
How have we not gone over this? They write a constitution, form a government, and go from there. Seriously, I am not saying that such tasks are simple, but what exactly are you looking for?
I’m not sure that these things are mutually exclusive at all. IF we remove Saddam and then allow the Iraqis to build the form of government they want, how have we not done both?
Of course. So what?
I’m not so sure. I think it is more likely that what you are trying to do is erect a strawman to criticize the current administration. Specifically, you are trying to say that since we have no way of guaranteeing Iraqs freedom or security for an unspecified amount of time, we have failed at providing them the opportunity to be free.
to live thier lives.
Yes it is. Freedom from Saddam is freedom from Saddam whether the water goes back on today or tomorrow.
No, I was actually refering to the French troops and sailors who were indispensible in defeating the English. They gave us the opportunity to try out our ideals of democracy for ourselves.
Also can you create a Democracy of the explosive mixture of Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurds ? I doubt the Kurds will accept becoming a full part of Iraq. That means pissed off Turks and Iranians.
The French had an easy time helping the US since they were homogeneous enough… but Iraq is a colonial artificial creation. Magically creating a democracy in Iraq is way harder than just giving them money and freedom.
eponymous, I heartily invite you into this thread to supply 1/10th of the detail for any other plan you are asking for here. To repeat once more: there are no guarantees and we aren’t claiming there are. But a general has to, at times, take a step back from the immediate situation and say “well, assuming for the moment we win tomorrow, how will we win the war.”
Freedom of speech? In place. Freedom of religion? In place. free markets? Check. Elections? On the way. Will it work? We sure hope.
Yes, it’s been said over and over; we will stay in Iraq as long as necessary. I’d expect 10-25 years; that’s as long as was truly necessary in Germany and Japan.
The phrase was “Moving toward.”
Maybe this is the problem. You are discussing tactics, we are discussing strategy.
It’s 1941, and we’re saying “To defeat the Nazis, we start by landing in North Africa and win there, reestablishing our connection through the Suez to India. From there, we land in Italy to establish a second front in Europe. Finally, after all that, then we land in France. Hitler’s forces will be dispersed and we’ll learn from the previous two landings.” You’re asking us exactly how we think we’re going to win in North Africa and we don’t know. But it certainly seems plausible that we could win there. Is there somewhere else you’d like to fight? Again, I invite you to tell us.
I don’t. I want the Middle East’s status quo broken. I want to set freedom of speech and free markets loose and watch them make a mess of the carefully constructed mental jails that enslave the Arab world. Some of the pieces may fly back at me, but I’m damn sure not just going to do nothing.
We’re not talking just about democracy, we’re talking about all the persoanal and economic freedoms that go with it. And it damn well does transform people. I invite you to consider what happened when the Soviets gave Eastern Europe “a little bit of freedom.” Hell, look at Iraq. Weeks after Saddam falls, there’s dozens of newspapers; for the US, anti-US, whatever. They weren’t nurtured or taught anything, except maybe how to work a copy machine.
Will do - I’ll try to outline a strategy (along with several sub-strategies or tactics) that takes into consideration the issues you’ve outlined. First, though, I’ll just address a couple of points here. We can continue this in the other thread.
Right - and now we are currently faced with a growing tide of support by the Shi’a to hold elections now. The only problem is that many of them would like to establish some sort of theocracy. Never mind that this might be contrary to what the Sunni and Kurds may want. Sustani (religious leader of the Shi’a) has pretty much called our bluff - “OK, you want to give us democracy? We’ll take deomcracy. We want to hold elections NOW.” Nevermind that this might potentially set the stage for civil war once the US decides to turn over power (I’ve read an acount where a CIA analyst predicts that Iraq is headed towards civil war).
Was THAT part of the initial plan?
Big, major, huge assumption. If it’s such a universal human value, then why hasn’t it been the primary form of government throughout much of human history?
Better, because we can demostrate that democracy works. We can give examples. We can identify the factors that make it morally and pragmatically superior to other form of government. We can look to historical examples to highlight the factors (mechanisms) that allowed democracy to be established and flourish over time in those socieities.
Again, another major assumption. If it’s so fundamental, then we would see a much larger evidence of democracies throughout human history. Don’t conflate “freedom” with “democracy”. You need the first for the second to take place. But you need the first in such a way (distinguishing between “freedom from” and “freedom to” and institutionalize the safeguarding of personal freedoms from governmental tyranny) that allows democracy to become established and flourish over time. Once it becomes established and flourishes over time, then it becomes much easier for it to become established and flourish in other places/societies - because it WORKS. Then you arrive at the point (hopefully) that IT DOES become a universal value for all human beings.
Then, it seems that you should address this concern to Jojo as it was “part of Bush’s plan that [Jojo] made up.” Jojo is who posited that the threat to Iran from Iraq was what was keeping Iran from fully realizing its true democratic potential and stated such as an explanation as to the how the Bush Admin’s plans for democratc reform in the ME is dependent upon the removal of Hussien and the Iraqi Baath party from power.
It’s important to note that for the most part the only things that I’ve previously and specifically said were not mechanisms were variations on “mere existence/proximity”. Mere existence/proximity is a condition and not by any resonable stretch of the imagination a mechanism. There’re specific aspects, impacts and implications of an existence that actually effect change. These are the mechanisms.
Examples:
Jojo specifically mentioned:
That a threat to Iran from Iraq is a signifigant and crucial hindrance to the emergence of a truly reformed and democratic Iran, therefore, removal of the threat to Iran from Iraq would be sufficient to allow for the current indigenous pressures for reform in Iran to come to fruition.
mechanism: removal of a primary hindrance to an ongoing process toward democratic reform- military threat from Iraq
The best job of discussing mechanisms so far.
Jojo also mentioned:
That basic desires for a better life, (materially), will stimulated by the future economic successes of a democratically reformed Iraq.
Sine Nomen also stated something similar to this:
That democratic reform of Iraq would evoke a desire for democratic reform from neighboring countries because democratic reform in Iraq will bring abut economic well being, and that in the minds of ME residents, economic well being is dependent on democratic reform.
Furt mentions something similar when he discusses envy and greed.
However, these are all desires not means of accomplishment.
I suppose that the authors were trying to imply that trade and cultural exchanges would allow for a wider dispersal of the “truth” about the benefits of democratic reform potentially available to ME states. This dispersal through trade and exchanges would be the mechanism by which the desires would be stimulated and fortified. The exchanges would ideally and presumably include information on how to effect this change in othe ME countries.
Sine Nomen also stated that a role model is a necessary ingredient for a reformation of the ME. The implications being that the indgenous desire for dem ref is being hindered by a lack of information as to how to go about the reformation and/or the flame of indigenous desire for demref is in need of fanning.
This is indicative of a discussion of the relative merits of mechanisms.
As I’ve addressed each of these mechanisms previously, there’s no need to iterate my discussion of them here.
I whole heartedly agree that these criticisms do not amount to even a retail refutation of the idea that a Democratic Iraq might influence its neighbors toward demref.
It’s worth noting that, by and large, this ME reform plan’s support is largely independent of detailed, public discussion about how the plan’s supposed to work.
W/o the theory of how the plan is supposed to work, there can’t be any refutation, nor even rebuttal.
Mechanisms are what provide and propagate influence. The most popular one mentioned so far revolves around the dispersal of info, (info about the prosperity/freedom/quality of life under a demreffed ME gov and the means of organizing such a demreffed ME gov), stimulating the desire for a demreffed ME gov .
I hope that the examples I highlighted from our fellow posters help explain what is meant by “mechanism” in this sense.
For further examples of specifics and discussions of historical examples see this State Dept doc:
This is a different “domino theory”. The original, of ancient and disreputable lineage, posed the premise that the dominos, the vulnerable states, would topple in sequence until, presumably, the Viet Cong were in a position to threaten Hawaii.
This new domino theory turns that inside out, order results from chaos, the dominos tumble up, as if the scene is run backwards. That is a very different kettle of piranha.