Any predictions, or odss on guesses even, about what Iraq might look like in ten years time?
My guess is that we get out over the next several years, secretly grateful that the newly elected government has asked that we leave. Civil war ensues for a few years with little oil production possible. A break-up into a loose confederacy is negotiated and soon after that Iran exerts more influence over the largest section and together attacks the segments of the remaining portion.
Other possibilities? We help guide a process into a less violent break-up and get out slowly.
Somehow a cohesive Iraqi national identity is produced and adopts Western secular values of democracy and free speech and rights for all sects to worship freely and functions as a regional counterweight to Iran. Would be nice. But so would my winning a lottery. Nagonnahappen.
A Shiite dominated Iran-style Islamic republic. A military assistance treaty with Iran, and military operations in Anbar province that result in a lot fewer Sunnis in Iraq.
So many in the Bush camp seem to believe that if people vote, there will be democracy in Iraq. What they refuse to accept is that an Iraqi can vote in the morning, and build car bombs and IEDS in the afternoon.
Democracy is invariable fatal to artificial countries like Iraq that have only existed due to ruthless dictatorship. Look what happened when democracy came to the USSR or Yugoslavia; both were artificial countries comprised of social and culturally disparate populations forced to live together solely by the iron fist of despots.
Why should we be surprised if, in the light of democracy, the Shiites, the Sunnis and Kurds realize they still don’t like each other?
My guess : A Shiite dominated theocracy consisting of Shiite and Sunni territory; the Kurdish regions may break off into an independent Kurdistan. If they do, they are likely promptly conquered by Turkey. Whatever happens, there will be lots of bloodshed.
Democracy. Not perfect, but functional; say at the level of the Phillippines or Mexico, with the difference that Iraq will not have their poverty.
Oil production will be at or approaching full capacity.
It will be almost as secular as the US; candidates will still have to pay lip service to Islam, and Muslim moral standards will be the rule in the culture, and fundamentalists will have significant, but not dominant political clout.
They will generally have civil liberties, though not everything that one might dream of. But free press, generally free speech, and more women’s rights than most of the middle east.
Their economy will be in great shape; that, as much as anything, will drive further progress in the region.
I’d say your take, though desireable, is a bit pipedreamyish, Furtylicious, mah man.
I see virtually no evidence that Iraq will become a secular state, or even anything approaching secularist. The Shi’a will most probably be running things over there ultimately, with eager dominat…I mean assistance from Iran.
Civil liberties? Pish, followed quickly thereafter by tosh. Free press? Bah. Free speech? Hah! I give you women’s rights, as I believe women in Iraq already have and have had more rights than women in other Midddle Eastern countries. Their rights would probably diminish somewhat however, if the Shi’a promoters of Sharia have a say.
I agree with you that oil will probably be at full or close to full production.
As far as their economy being in great shape, I’d need a definition of what you mean by that before I agree or disagree. I kind of doubt it, but I’d like to hear what you have to say.
I see no evidence it won’t. Saddam was a secularist, but the opposition to him was not usually on strictly religious grounds. The current government is secular, but I do not see thousands marching in the street demanding sharia. Please note my comment about it being “almost as secular as the US.” If the US had a multiparty system, I would expect that one (or more) of them would be explicitly religious; many political leaders use religion in their rhetoric; and yet I do not think the US has stopped being secular. Most of Europe have official state churches, and they’re secular, aren’t they? Mind where you set the bar.
They already have it. There are hundreds of newspapers, and the BBC and Al-Jazeera and an unfettered internet. If they made no progress at all from this point forward, they’d still be ahead of much of the world.
Unemployment well under 10%, growth of 5-10% (they can’t sustain the current explosive growth; nobody could), per capita incomes better than Iran or Syria.
Opposition to Saddam quite often had a religious component, but you’re correct, it usually wasn’t on strictly religous grounds. But look at the situation that was. Saddam was not amenable to pleasing the religous factions in his country and promoted their suppression or at least marginalization. In my view, the normal circumstances in such an environment would be that the religious would learn not to speak out, or at least to choose their fights wisely.
I’m not so sure that the current government is secular. Appearances and fact are often contradictory. These people are straddling the fence of trying to wield power for the first time while simultaneously appeasing their US masters…did I say that? :eek:
<tangent> Looking at the US these days one wonders just how secularist we, as a nation, really are</tangent>
Lol…newspapers which have bills to pay and print, for the most part, what’s financially expedient. BBC? Puh-leese. I can smell the propaganda all the way over…here. I predict much fettering of internet access when the government get’s its act together. It’s the least of their concerns now, for obvious reasons.
Unempoyment under 10%? I’ll give you that one. I can see it in ten years. Growth of 5-10%? Growth in what specifically? Per Capita incomes better than Iran or Syria? I’d say possibly marginally better, but probably comparable.
I’m betting that there will emerge a strongman leader, perhaps with a weak or rubber-stamp parliament.
More importantly, within ten years of US troops leaving, Iraq will be involved in another major war, either a civil war or against one of its neighbors. Kinda hard to guess.
Really, it could go any way. But I wonder - those of you who are so sure that it will collapse into civil war and chaos, what do you base that on? Have you actually listened to what Iraqis are saying? Because I have, and so far I’m not seeing civil war in the cards. In fact, Iraqis these days are doing lots of talking about the resurgence of Iraqi nationalism, which has been buried for decades.
The Kurds are not about to allow themselves to be dominated by a Shiite theocracy. The Sunnis don’t want it either. And even the Shia are split. And while Iran is certainly trying to influence the Shiites, Ayatollah al-Sistani is a ‘quietist’ who does not approve of the Clergy openly running the government.
My personal opinion is that we’ll see a functioning democracy, but with religious undertones. It won’t be as free as the United States, but it will be freer than other Arab states. I also believe the U.S. will be there for a long time, although in nowhere near the current numbers. Ten years from now it would not surprise me if there were 50,000 Americans in Iraq - and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. 50,000 stayed in South Korea for 50 years, and there are still huge numbers of Americans stationed in Japan and Germany.
The believes that Iraq will have democracy has been strangled in the craddle.
Persons like Rummy and Bremer lost the peace after one of the greatest military victories in history.
Just listen to Naomi Klein in Independent World Television:
Too bad that the US administration did not want what the majority of the Iraqi people did want = a certain date when US would pull out.
Or local elections.
Listen carefully.
Religion. The strongest leaders in Iraq are currently religious leaders. Any government will have to include some deference to them or lip service.
Shi’ite domination. Unless the Sunni manage to overthrow the Shia in a bloody civil war… the Shia will excercise power more than others.
Continous internal opposition… until this generation of Sunni live I think there will always be that taste of defeat in their mouths. Be it political or violent there will be continuous testing and defiance of the government.
Dependence on the US or Iran. One of these will always be the “patron”. With so many interests in play the governement will always be a bit of a puppet to one or both of these powers.
Corruption will be rampant… like any other Middle Eastern or poor country. So even if it does become a democracy the chance is the common Iraqi will not be too happy about his government. Much like in Latin America for example.
Now admittedly, I haven’t been in Iraq talking to Iraqis. But what past Iraqi nationalism is there to be resurgent to? Iraq was an arbitrary division of land that contained many different groups each with their own national identities. It was created as an independent entity in 1932 and the “republic” was only created in 1958. Since then the only way it has held together is by the force of various ruthless strongmen. There has been no strong national identity, no core Iraqi values to hold dear and to defend, at anytime. There are tribal identities uncomfortably shoved together as a matter of arbitrary political borders.
Of course various different groups can come together under one flag, all sharing in some common set of values that they feel that flag represents. America does a fair to middlin’ job of doing just that (despite the Bill O’Reilly’s of the land), but few others even come close. And you expect this shared vision of an inclusive Iraqi national identiy with shared values that override tribal identies and religious sects to emerge triumphant just because we’ve given them a taste sample of democracy? Be real.
Or better yet, give me an example where a coalition that had previously been held in place only by overwhelming force, turned democratic and held together afterwards. The Soviet Union? Yugoslavia? … I’m open to being convinced. I want to be convinced.
We went in, over my objections btw, and we removed a bad man, who, it turns out, was of no direct threat to us. Diverted resources from catching a bad man who was a direct threat to us in the process, too. And we broke what they had passing for a country in the process. Putting it back how we found it is not an option. Just abandoning it in this condition is not realistic either. We would be much worse off than before. Creating a strong secular and inclusive democracy with a national identity overriding all others doesn’t seem realistic. A bit of a pipe dream. And I’d wonder what is in that pipe btw, cause it aint oil. So how do we prepare for what are more likely options and avoid the worst of them?
Iraq?
Thriving shipping lanes! Regional prosperity! No good for fishing, though . . . too much radiation . . .