Diplomatic Regime Change

Preemptive Democracy Instead of Preemptive War
Getting Saddam out with the backing of everyone.

www.worldcitizen.org deserves your attention! These scholars have devised a plan to legitimize a new regime in Iraq with minimal mobilization of troops. Please look at their proposal:

Preemptive Democracy in Iraq: An Alternative to Preemptive War

Then look at how they plan to achieve this:

Preemptive Democracy for Iraq: following the example of the Founding Fathers

I am truly amazed that this option is not being further explored by political officials. I have signed the petition, and written my elected officials. I hope to see others do the same if they believe this is a viable alternative. Time is, after all, running out.

This is an interesting idea, and not without precedent. During WWII, the French had a government in exile under DeGaulle (okay maybe I shouldn’t use the French as an example, given recent events). I think the US should pursue this and give diplomatic recognition to such a government. We could still purse inspections, and if we do decide to invade, a government will be ready to take over, we won’t have to build one from scratch.

Ideally, the government-in-exile could take over Iraq’s UN seat, but I find it unlikely that China or Russia would ever support such a position. Plus, many governments around the world that have dictatorships or unpopular governments would never recognize such a government in exile, for fear of setting precedent.

Couldn’t hurt though. We should at least try it.

First of all, I love the completely arbitrary prediction of success “estimated at 70-80%”. I would love to see the process by which they arrived at that number:

“Hmm… we need to pull a convincing number out of our collective butts, Bob. What sounds good? 90%”

“No, Ed, that sounds way too optimistic. Drop it down to about 75%. That sounds more believeable.”

“Good idea. How about a range? 70-80% It sounds all scientific, and stuff.”

“Great idea, Ed! How about a big round of self-affirming hugs?”
That being said, what makes you think Saddam is going to sit there, while we create a government in his own backyard, for the express purpose of overthrowing him? And assuming that we manage to pull that off without the whole shebang getting gassed, you then believe that Saddam is going to say, “Okay, you got me, guys. I give up. Have fun with your new government!” It would still require a war to get Saddam out. The only difference is that Saddam would have that much more time to prepare, and that he would know for certain that we were going to attack.

Basically, the Bush plan is to overthrow Saddam with military force, then institute a new government. This plan is to institute a new government, then overthrow Saddam. All the war, with none of the actual logic.

You’ll have to excuse me when I say that this is by far the stupidest idea to come out of the anti-war crowd yet. WorldCitizen.org should be proud.
Jeff

I don’t understand why the options are mutually exclusive. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a representative government in the process when the invasion begins? Wouldn’t it lend internation credibility to the war effort to have the Iraqi people themselves pushing for the regime change along with the US? I know the posted articles indicate it could be an alternative to war, and while it’s possible, I highly doubt it. But how does that mean that we shouldn’t start the process of creating a democratic Iraqi government sooner than later?

That is not a bad idea per se, but an unrealistic one; there simply are not people available right now. In any event, It is highly likely that the CIA has identified people who could lead a new and free Iraq, and possibly has already approached them with offers.

However, this is a good thing to keep secret from Iraq at the moment. Actually, its a good thing to keep secret from the world community. Otherwise, Bush faces challenges on the basis that he’s creayted a crony puppet government before the war.

This is a lovely idea, but I can’t help thinking of the South Park episode with the Underwear Gnomes, whose grand plan was:

Step 1: Steal underwear
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profits!
The problem I’m having here is getting from the Preemptively Democratic recognition of a new Iraqi government to the installation of that government in the place of the guy with all those Iraqi Republican Guard around his palaces, without having to wage a war. Saddam’s not likely to say “Well, they’ve declared a new government, I better call the movers.”

The plus side of the plan is pretty much the addition of a great deal of time to the implementation of regime change. I agree totally that international acceptance of a neo-Iraqi government-in-waiting prior to the military action required to install that government would not only be much more palatable to other Arab nations, but it would also limit the necessity for occupation by the US. No occupation = less Arab annoyance at US imperialism. Also saves a great deal of US money.

Another advantage is the added world legitimacy which the concluding military actions would garner by association with an internationally recognized democratic process.

However, it must be obvious to all parties, that the timing of such a lengthy process, no matter how sensible it may seem, does not fit in with the Bush administration’s received wisdom that time has already run out, and therefore the plan is unacceptable.

Aye. There’s the rub. But unacceptable to whom? The United States? Perhaps you’re correct, given the new 10-day deadline before strikes will commence. However, this plan has actually been thrown around for quite some months, and I have heard hints of this process already starting to take place. From what I understand, worldcitizen.org does not intend for the United States to be the ones to start a “crony puppet government”. If you look at the links to the board and advisory council, scholars from all over the world have contributed to this idea. I am also under the understanding that several members are affiliated with the UN in some way. This is by no means an organization created by and for the United States.

I believe that this process cannot take place without some military force, that is correct. However, I do believe that having an assembly of persons williing to take over the challenges of building the democracy upon Saddam’s forced resignation can not only save billions, but also stave off the anti-American sentiments buillding overseas. This process can begin making motions toward the creation of a democracy comprised of Iraqis who them are legitimized by the UN. Once the UN has recognized their existence, they can then seek the assistance of the UN to remove Saddam from power (thus requiring military intervention). I never suggested this process would be painless, but it is MUCH more cost-effective and collaborative than the current plan of <i>Permission? We don’t need no stinkin’ permission</i>.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LadyAvalonian *
**Aye. There’s the rub. But unacceptable to whom? The United States? Perhaps you’re correct, given the new 10-day deadline before strikes will commence. However, this plan has actually been thrown around for quite some months, and I have heard hints of this process already starting to take place. From what I understand, worldcitizen.org does not intend for the United States to be the ones to start a “crony puppet government”. If you look at the links to the board and advisory council, scholars from all over the world have contributed to this idea. I am also under the understanding that several members are affiliated with the UN in some way. This is by no means an organization created by and for the United States.

I believe that this process cannot take place without some military force, that is correct. However, I do believe that having an assembly of persons williing to take over the challenges of building the democracy upon Saddam’s forced resignation can not only save billions, but also stave off the anti-American sentiments building overseas. This process can begin making motions toward the creation of a democracy comprised of Iraqis who are legitimized by the UN. Once the UN has recognized their existence, the new government can then seek the assistance of the UN to remove Saddam from power (thus requiring military intervention). The idea being that the request to remove Saddam comes from INSIDE Iraq, not from a bully-like superpower. I never suggested this process would be painless, but it is MUCH more cost-effective and collaborative than the current plan of Permission? We don’t need no stinkin’ permission.

Sorry. The second post was my atempt to edit. I didn’t realize that I do not have permission to edit my posts. Moderator, you may delete the second (repeated) post.

I would like to add that the whole idea of legitimizing an alternative Iraqi government who then seeks the support of the UN to remove Saddam means that this request comes from INSIDE Iraq, not from a ruling superpower that could be viewed as having ulterior motives.