If the U.S. pulls out and let’s the Iraqi people “choose” their own leader/government all that will happen is another fanatical Islamic government will come in to power. We’ll have another breeding ground for terrorists and we’ll be right back to where started before the war. Yeah, not having a say in how the government is formed in Iraq makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:
Several posters in this thread (and others) have made comparisons between the current situation in Iraq and the situations in Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. I’m afraid that’s a bit like comparing apples and fish.
At the end of WWII, the populations of Germany and Japan had been soundly, thoroughly defeated. Millions of Germans and Japanese had been killed on the battlefield, or firebombed into cinders. The remaining civilians were in no position to resist occupation by the Allies, or to resist Allied notions of what a “proper” government should consist of. For example, Douglas MacArthur pretty much wrote Japan’s constitution, and the Japanese didn’t do much complaining.
The Iraqi people, on the other hand, are not a defeated people. Basically, they hid out in their basements for a few weeks while the U.S. removed their government, one that most of them are certainly happy to be rid of.
Under these circumstances, expecting things to play out in a way that is even remotely comparable to the post-WWII experience in Germany and Japan is wildly unrealistic. Any efforts by the U.S. to impose an American notion of “good government” is likely to be met by stiff resistance. What are we going to do, gun the Shiites down in the street?
Id suggest a much longer term stay in Iraq. Get the population used to the concept of a vote equaling real power.Write a Constitution every bit as protective as our own.
Have the citizens watch leaders get elected, then legally impeached for illegal behavior. Get the citizens interested in thier own power to choose. Suddenly the ayatolla that can be removed if hes an ahole doesnt seem as awe inspiring. Torture chambers dont go well with the voters as long as the intermn government exists to support the framework of the Constitution. Let them get used to the fact that they can have a government without tourture chambers and that they can have a say in the goverence of thier lives and IMHO you WONT get this obsessive ayatolla worship.It may take awhile but the end product will work.I firmly believe you cant stuff the democtaric genie back in the bottle. Give it enough time and enough guidence there can be a stable democratic/theologist mix government that will be fairly stable and not be more prone to dictatership than anywhere else. Then and only then do we leave.
By which time we can turn our attention to the threat posed by the Klingons.
Elucidator…funny comeback indeed but whats your hurry? To do otherwise will expose us to critisism that we left “before the job was done” I say do it , do it right, and if it take 1 year 5 or 20 do it.
OK. a complete hijack but…this one law alone will keep all ayatollas from getting to big. They must publically disclose ALL income and holdings <see IRS forms> and pay taxes just like everyone else. And of course subject to arrest for tax evasion just like every other citizen. This one rule alone would stop most hero worshipping that your gunna get when they see how much these people REALLY make compared to thier poor miserable lives!!!
I sympathise with your intent, jonpluc, but the task really isn’t ours to do. We don’t have the slightest idea how to “build” a nation, and I very much doubt anyone does. Our leaders seem to operate from the charming precept that, given the opportunity, anyone would choose to be quite like us. History shows otherwise, I fear. Authoritarianism appeals to vast numbers of people, if for no other reason than it offers rock-solid stability, and I regret that vast numbers of our fellow beings prefer stability to freedom, especially when they have no experience of the latter.
It is similar to a long-term prisoner becoming “institutionalized”: having been denied choice, he becomes incapable of dealing with choice, and craves the deadening routine of being told what to do when, and how.
I fear we face an array of choices than run the gamut from the unpalatable to the dreadful, and that it will finally boil down to this: shall the Iraqi people suffer the consequences of our foolishness, or shall we?
I would suggest we have built a WONDERFUL nation that ranks by some as the best on the planet.
“Authoritarianism appeals to vast numbers of people, if for no other reason than it offers rock-solid stability”
I would suggest a government based on the “Gestapo” breaking into your home at any time and taking anyone away for any or no reason at all, is NOT a basis for “rock-solid stability”.
“I regret that vast numbers of our fellow beings prefer stability to freedom, especially when they have no experience of the latter.”
Thus i feel this gives us the obligation to allow them to experience the latter. And if it takes 10 years or 20. Again so be it.
If the cost should prove to be a matter of time and patience, you’d get no argument from me. Rather too optimistic, I’m afraid.
Elucidator, to me the above quote is like saying we find 10 Marines that have been POWs for 20 years and not resuceing them because they have probably been institutionalized by now and probably wouldnt like it if you disturbed thier routine.
I fully understand the potential costs in money lives and commitment. However, isnt that what the whole program is about? <cue milirary band in background> Every soilder there in his mind goes to spread freedom and to them its worth dyin for. im not trying to be OVERLY cliche but if we manage a workable model of semi democracy in the middle of the middle east it would be a wonderful thing and really worth the cost in time commitment and frankly lives. Millions have died for these very freedoms in our past. Its in our VERY BEST interest to NOT screw this up and do it right as they can. Maybe terrorists will kill some troops. Not cool but the cost of freedom thing again. IMO
Exactly. So why can the US administration say such a government is unacceptable in Iraq, when an equivalent government in Saudi Arabia, who (against the will of its people) supports US policy, is OK. Don’t you see the hypocracy?
Errr, no, I don’t. If we had our choice, we wouldn’t install that form of government. We didn’t have a say in Saudi Arabia. And we do have a say in Iraq.
But do we have our choice?
What, we don’t have a say in Saudi Arabia?
I expect we could take Riyadh even more quickly than we took Baghdad. I mean, they’re not even expecting us! 
And your evidence that this would work better in Iraq than it does in the U.S. is…?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I hardly think the American people are ready for a lifetime commitment to Iraq, given that we were sold a quick war and vague statements about an easy aftermath.
Not to mention, our much more modest presence in Saudi Arabia over the past decade inspired a certain group to bomb our embassies, fly planes into the Pentagon and WTC, and so forth. You gotta think there’s at least the possibility that a long-term U.S. stay in Iraq might have an unpleasant downside.
To establish a “democraticish” beach head in the middle east would be the greatest foreign policy coup since the fall of the Soviet Union.Certinally WELL worth any long time occupation. No one questions the unpleasant downside of having deaths to protect these freedoms. But its no different than a soldier at Guantanamo or on the North Korean/South Korean border.War is hell, terrorism is hell but the unique opportunity to have a kinda democracy in the Middle East is an unprecidented opportunity that shouldnt be wasted nor done with half measures.
Well, let’s see: you’re chiding us here for saying what we’re saying, but you’re saying that if we were politicians, it would be OK?
That’s funny, holding the people running the country to a lower standard than you’re holding a bunch of nobodies on a message board to.
I’m glad you agree with me.
I don’t think we’ll ultimately succeed. But I think we might well try, to our likely regret.
In much of Central America, for most of the previous century. Ever hear of a guy named Sandino? We had Marines in Nicaragua for a good while between the world wars, tracking him down in order to keep Nicaragua safe for the United Fruit Company.
And who are you? I first ran into you yesterday, on an anonymous message board. Feel free to email me your real name, address, and phone number, and then we can talk.
Hence my OP.
Maybe, but given that that beachhead’s got a pretty good chance of shortly establishing itself next door in Iran, without any visible help from us, I’m not sure I see the point. Especially when a US occupation next door may give the mullahs a fresh opportunity to tar their opponents as allies of the Great Satan.
And to establish the second democracy in the region probably isn’t “WELL worth any long time occupation.” And that assumes we’re successful in doing so, which is one whopper of an assumption, IMHO.
It isn’t the deaths so much as the overall costs; I don’t expect US soldiers’ deaths to be an issue unless they either start piling up much higher than they already have, or if most of the casualties start being the ‘weekend warriors’ - the latter of which is quite possible, given that most of our peacekeeping troops are National Guardsmen. I’m hoping that won’t come back to bite us on the ass, but if it does, the fallout won’t be pretty.
But I expect that keeping a rather substantial force in Iraq, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars each year, will wear thin on the American public after a year or two, unless there’s an end in sight. Even if not a single US soldier gets hit by a single bullet.