The SDMB mock election Debate #1: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan.

[Sage_Rat]

To expand on my last answer a little bit more:

If you look at countries which have had democracy imposed on them (mostly in South America), I don’t believe that any of those countries were able to maintain a true democracy. Only Chile is now, finally, seeming to reach that state, if I recall correctly.

When you have a nation where all of the people are used to a dictator, head chieftan, etc., when El Presidente doesn’t step down at the end of his term he’s able to maintain his position due to various allegiances and bribes. The idea of Rule by Law isn’t something that has been passed down from one generation to the next for hundreds of years.

Even just looking at Russia, when democracy is attempted, most of the populace doesn’t like it. A democratic president doesn’t have the power to control the land, to fix all the issues of corruption that are probably left in his country. He must allow his rivals to work against him–which can be a great force where there is corruption and the military is still a political body rather than a group of simple government employees–and his legislature to slow him. There’s an uncertainty in the way the land is run–accepting of compromises–that the people are unused to and find unnerving.

Going from the world’s precedents up to date, I would very much doubt any real democracy being born if we follow our current course.

The local militaries need to be headed by known-to-be-honest Americans, cycled out regularly so that a culture of corruption doesn’t have time to leach in, promoting the locals who are honest and booting any who are not honest. Children need to learn about democracy in school, practicing mock-governments as part of their schooling, so that in ten to twenty years, a democratic government can actually be started that won’t simply revert to a dictatorship couched as a democracy.

Certainly this would take a great amount of effort, but at the same time it would be an investment that would almost certainly pay itself back. And more importantly, anything less is simply leaving the Afghani and Iraqi people to deal with cleaning up after us until the next time that we feel the need to go to war with their chieftan. Though, of course, as said, I would still only feel like I had any position to attempt just a radical investment in a foreign nation if it was agreed to by the people themselves.

[Liberal]

@What Exit?

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts and replies so far, I think we are off to a good start. I will start the second debate on Monday, but that does not mean this one should end.

Due respect, but I think that it should. I don’t believe that I could conduct half-a-dozen or more potential simultaneous QA sessions and do sufficient justice to them all. But then, maybe I’m just too old and out of shape.

A few candidates have addressed it already, but how do the rest of you feel about the “Surge”?

Thanks for that question, What Exit?. I feel that an escalation of the war is counterproductive to my goal of withdrawal.

[Paladud]

Libertaria First

Iraq - let our allies withdraw, then withdraw our own troops. Civil war is inevitable; nothing is gained by bleeding our military while postponing it.

Afghanistan - Increase the US military presence by 200%. Keep some semblance of peace and destroy the Taliban remnants. We agree with the Liberal Market party that the opium production is to be left alone.

Iran - Leave alone.

Pakistan - Leave alone.

[Ocean_Annie]

Thank you for the well thought out response, Liberal.

I agree with a number of your positions. Considering the high level of poverty and lack of education in much of Pakistan, would you consider U.S aid to help empower the poor across the region? This form of aid will likely do more to combat growing militants than the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. to bolster Pakistan’s military. Or do you firmly believe in severing all economic aid to Pakistan? Should the U.S be concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons’ capabilities or is this issue overstated by the current administration?

[Liberal]

@unconventional

I agree with a number of your positions. Considering the high level of poverty and lack of education in much of Pakistan, would you consider U.S aid to help empower the poor across the region? This form of aid will likely do more to combat growing militants than the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. to bolster Pakistan’s military. Or do you firmly believe in severing all economic aid to Pakistan? Should the U.S be concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons’ capabilities or is this issue overstated by the current administration?

Thank you for the thoughtful question, unconventional. I do not favor giving Americans’ hard earned money to any foreign power. And not just because of the ethics of spending someone else’s money. It’s also because it almost always happens that funds we send abroad, especially to third-tier dictatorial regimes, tend to gather in a bottleneck at the top. Our government is not equipped to distribute money directly to the people who really need it — the poor, the hungry, and the homeless. Instead, what we do is send the money to the government in power, over which we have little or no control when it decides how to spend it. All too often, it is spent on palaces and military equipment.

Private Amercian charity, on the other hand, has a stellar record for helping others all over the world, and has in place logistical facilities to distribute funds directly to those in need and to those servicing the people in need. A large number of American charities do massive and excellent work abroad. It would be my policy to make it easier for Americans to be even more charitable than they already are by taking less away from them to prop up unnecessary government services and projects, like the Iraq war, which costs us about $2 billion dollars a week.

[Liberal]

I apologize to unconventional for failing to address his question about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. As president, I would be concerned about the potential for any and all nuclear nations to threaten us, and given the nature of the weapons, my tolerance level for threats would be very low indeed. If Pakistan were to threaten US citizens in any manner with any of its nuclear weapons, I would locate and eliminate them all, using whatever force necessary, even if it meant asking Congress for a declaration of war.

[What_Exit]

Well it looks like the first debate has concluded. I thank the participants and look forward to their positions on the Economy, Healthcare, Social Security & Poverty.

I hope everyone enjoyed this and I hope these debates build in interest.

Jim

[foolsguinea]

It’s funny how we were led into Iraq by exiles & now we say, let’s have more exiles!

I agree with Bricker; we need to take responsibility, to get down in the mud & the sand & rebuild Iraq. But this is not the proper duty of your states’ National Guard divisions. Therefore, I will ask Congress to institute an all-volunteer Democracy-Building Corps–hopefully with a better-sounding name than that–made up of individuals who freely make a long-term commitment to stay in Iraq & Afghanistan where we are trying to rebuild the civil society demolished by dictatorship, invasion, & civil war. I propose & hope as soon as possible to offer through the Department of Education free tuition for anyone studying the relevant languages & cultures of those regions, as well as federal grants for colleges to add faculty to teach them.

It’s not OK to break someone else’s country & walk away, without even seeking to find out whom you have injured to offer compensation.

If the USA really seeks to be a global imperial power, then we need not only a committed defense force but a committed expeditionary force. National Guard units are not suited to wars of foreign adventurism, & should not be pressed into them.

Now, if we cannot get enough volunteers for this Corps, or if the countries ask us to butt out leave them alone, or we find a point where we just can’t move forward constructively, then we call it off & go home. And this time, let’s learn from the mistake, which we should have learned in Vietnam. It is damn near impossible to give some other country democracy & civil society in a short-term sense, & it’s not helpful to try to do it with our soldiers who have no vested interest in that foreign country.

Iran:

The USA invented nukes. We have more than anybody. Even though the vast majority of these weapons of mass destruction will never be & are not intended to be fired in war, we decline to give them up because fear that we would somehow be less safe–even though we, without them, have the most powerful military the earth has ever seen.

We have opted out of the Geneva Accords, we refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol, the international land mine ban, the International Criminal Court. We have no moral high ground from which to condemn a nation that refuses to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

For 60 years, Iran has been without nukes while the Anglo-Saxon powers have had nukes & lorded over them as poor Asiatics.

I believe they will one day have nukes, & if that is within the next 10 years, they will not give them up until 70 years after we give up ours.

And I don’t blame them one whit.

Pakistan:

It’s funny how Musharraf was our guy until somehow we decided that he needed to give up power to the democratic system he’d personally overthrown. Enough of this nonsense. We need a realistic foreign policy. Musharraf is a dictator, & will be one, probably for the rest of his life, whether he wears a uniform or not. If Pakistan seeks to have elections, we will of course help monitor them, & hope that they can rebuild in democracy in their country. I will stand for that hope, but as a realist, I now how this ends up. Democracy is fragile. Democracy is hard. Democracy, in human history, is abnormal. We need to rebuild our democracy at home, not delude ourselves that we can export it to other countries with a few superficial changes.