Despite what the US and UK administrations claim, I don’t think that they really want a “true” democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East. If they do install a democracy, it will be one that exists on their terms.
They will choose the nominees, and the Iraqi people will be forced to pick from a conveniently pre-packaged selection of puppets. I don’t believe for a second that the Iraqi people will be allowed to elect whoever they want as leader.
My reasons are as follows:
If the Iraqis were given true freedom to elect a leader, it’s likely that they would choose an Islamic/Theocratic government, similar to the one in Iran. This is because they have been had a secular society imposed on them for thirty years by Saddam’s regime, and are now clamouring for a return to a religious way of life. Similarly, over 63% of the population are Shi’iite Muslims, and there is strong backing for some of the more prominent clerics to run for office. Needless to say, neither the US or the UK want a new oil-rich Islamic State within such a strategic area, let alone one that would likely forge strong ties to Iran.
If the US and the UK really wanted to overthrow Saddam and install a true democracy in Iraq, they could have supported the popular uprising that occurred just after the first Gulf War. However instead of aiding the people’s revolt, they stood by and allowed Saddam’s forces to brutally crush all opposition. Saddam could have been out on his ass years ago, but the US saw fit to keep him there, because a democracy arising from such a revolt would be one that they could not control and manipulate. This way, they get to rebuild the country from the ground up according to their exact specifications.
Finally, this theory extends across the Middle East. As long as the current assortment of petty dictators and tyrants do not step on America’s toes, the US Administration are happy to keep them in power. Democracy will not be allowed to flourish in the Middle East because the US will not allow a prosperous Arabic and Islamic nation to upset the balance of power in the region. Look at what happened to Iran and Mossadegh - they had a democratically elected leader, and the US got rid of him and installed a puppet ruler in the form of the Shah.
Call me cynical, but that’s how I see it. The US does not want a true democracy anywhere in the Middle East because it would run the risk of a new Islamic State and upset the balance of power in the region. Giving the “Arab Street” real freedom to choose their leaders is just too dangerous for America.
America’s stated intention of spreading democracy and freedom in the region is a sham. They will only allow an Arab “Democracy” on their terms, and when it suits their purposes, otherwise democracy can go hang.
So what do you all think? Am I just being a cynical old cuss?
Nope, I think you’re just about on the button. The US want democracy western style, i.e. happy to trade oil to the U.S. on terms favoured by the U.S.
Having to deal with a religiously based government would get in the way of that and complicate things. Unfortunately, that’s very likely to be exactly the kind of government the Iraqis want.
They’ll learn. Religion should stay out of politics* and you shall have no god above that of the US dollar.
Except when Dubya uses it, 'cos that’s the nice kind of religion.
I was going to point out the obvious contradiction (non-friendly puppet?) when I realized there is more wisdom in your words than meets the eye and than you probably intended. The USA has a history of installing puppet regimes only to later see the puppet become non-friendly. At one time the USA was on Saddam Hussein’s side. Who would’ve thunk it?
Yeah, in the case of Iran, I’d say that their intervention backfired spectacularly when the people overthrew the Puppet Shah and Installed a virulently Anti-American Theocracy instead. That one sure bit 'em in the ass…
I think the Bushistas are quite sincere in thier bent towards democracy in Iraq, it is only that they are naive. They imagine a nation of small entrepreneurs and Starbucks managers who would naturally gravitate towards US policy, since US policy is sane and rational. What sane and rational government would oppose US policy? Except maybe France, but really, do they count?
What they overlook, in thier haste and zeal, is that Iraq as a nation doesn’t really exist. It was held together entirely by force and fear, without Saddam, there is no “Iraq”.
The Kurds, for instance, have never wavered in thier intense desire for a Kurdistan. They can’t have it, and the more rational Kurds realise this: were they truly independent, Turkey and Iran would fall upon thier oil fields like hungry dogs on a bone.
This “nation-building” is going to be like Dr. Frankenstien trying to make a person out of a healthy adult male, an 80 year old woman, and a retarded infant.
Perhaps, I am not sure about puppets per se, as conveniently accomodationist power grabbers. Nothing wrong with that per se, inevitable in many respects, but given the realities, the convenient power grabbers are (a) dirty (Chalabi) or (b) Not in tune with majority aspirations (Shiite revivalism) leading to medium term instability and likely short term instability.
I am led to understand by my friends in the various security agencies hanging 'bout that there is real concern for fragmentation and hardening of mafia style politics on one hand, and religious radicalism in reaction on the other hand.
Well, this is what I warned of prior to and during the war.
On reasons:
First, the elite driven secularism well-predates Sadaam, as do most of the oppressive aspects of the regime. It’s important to keep this in mind, for if one thinks simply in terms of Sadaam’s regime one will get a distorted vision of the depth of the problems. I am reminded of the (journalistic) silliness/sloppiness one could sometimes read in the late 1980/early 1990s about ‘restoring’ democracy to the Soviet Bloc, the writers, largely Americans, slipping unconsiouscly into the habit of thinking democracy as natural state.
Second, while it is very clear that the Shiite majority in its majority wants some kind of Islamicly based state, it is not clear that it will be theocratic. Iranian style theocratic elements – giving direct political power to the Ayatollah and Hujjatallahs is a bit outside of the Arab Shiite tradition.
It may appear to be picking nits, but it has important implications - a state with explicit Islamic constitutional content but not a theocracy is entirely possible to finesse – whether the current Administration is capable of doing this is another question – but an Iranian quasi-theocratic structure probably is not.
I would not expect the latter, I would expect that for longer term stability some form of the former is necessary. Another imposed secularism simply compounds past errors.
Largely, as you can see, I agree, but with important notes I hope.
Regretably this is a fantasy. After the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 90-91, the Iraqis clearly were not going to take another whack at Sadaam. Too risky for the Shiites, not in the Sunnis and Xians’ interests, and the Kurds already had their slice of the pie, more or less.
In terms of getting rid of Sadaam, yes an invasion (or his untimely death by assistance or otherwise) was the sole way to rid oneself of Sadaam. Now, being a cynical bastard myself, and as I anticipate over all destabilization over the medium term, and as the Bush Administration did such a piss-poor job of lining up the argument, I opposed the war given its context at that moment. I still do. However, it is not necessary to engage in fantasy – Sadaam was a mean bastard and nothing was going to bring him down short of a palace coup, invasion or untimely death.
To the first part, yes, the US will cynically continue to collaborate with the nasty little regimes in the region, in the name of national interest. In some respects I have few problems with this, insofar as I do not believe that the region can be externally transformed. It would be nice to support democratization – indeed I wish it was more of the policy – I mean by that the real effective policy and not the pretty words the Ambassadors murmer over wine and cheese at the receptions.
However, in virtually every country I can think of, a genuine democratic regime would bring to power interests at least initially opposed to US interests. My own analysis is that this might not be such a bad deal in the medium and long terms. Ironically no country in the region has a more moderated populace vis-a-vis the US and a generally genuine democratic movement than Iran – the latter I might actually contradict myself on, but I would hazard the opinion this is largely true. Now, our Neo-Cons have pimped the absurd vision of Iranians welcoming a US intervention, to overthrow the regime. That is fantastical and fundamentally stupid, but there is a nugget of truth - for longer term pro-American / pro-Western developments, it might be worth the risk of seeing radical regimes emerge to discredit their own radicalism and move on. Risky strategy, but at least it takes away the often true charge of hypocrisy.
As to the question of the US allowing a prosperous Arab or Islamic nation to emerge, for all that I see a fair share of blame going to the West for the continued negative influence of colonialism and post-colonial intervention, at least equally to blame are the regional elites and their benighted policies, which are largely their own invention to serve their own narrow interests. The US and the West generally are not running around deliberately impoverishing the MENA region, not at all, although some policies in my opinion have perverse side effects. I might add that continued poor adaption of MENA societies to modern socio-economic structures also are a serious problem.
Well, to a certain extent, yes. (I presume you mean a new Islamic state among many and not the Caliphal idea)
Probably, yes. For that reason I am contemptous of those who went hook line and sinker for all the rah rah liberating and democratising Iraq agitprop.
However one need not frame this in quasi-conspriratorial anti-US terms.
Thank you Collounsbury, I was hoping you’d stop by to add a little insight, and I’m glad that we seem to be in agreement (at least in general).
First off, I must admit my ignorance and confess that I was unaware that Iraq’s secular tendencies were imposed before Saddam. In fact, I know absolutely nothing about what the state of affairs was before he came to power.
It also appears that I have unwittingly equated Islamic Statehood with Theocracy. In my mind they were one and the same, and I genuinely thought the Iranian model was the one that Iraq’s Shi’ite majority would follow. Your comments give me pause, however. If rule by an Ayatollah is “outside the Arabic Shi’ite tradition” (as opposed to the Persian one, I suppose), then what exactly is that tradition?
I still don’t believe that the US would allow even a watered-down Islamic government to take power, even “a state with explicit Islamic constitutional content”, as this would open the door for a more robustly religious government to step in further down the line. Despite your misgivings, I really wouldn’t put it past the US to “compound past errors” and install a secularist Iraqi government.
Regarding the overthrow of Saddam, my point is that the Shi’ite rebellion of 90-91 would have been successful if supported by the US. The fact that that it wasn’t shows that the US would only allow him to be overthrown on their terms. It seems that installing a democracy was a priority only when it served US interests.
My point precisely. And yes, I will also agree that while the US has a lot to answer for in propping up (or at least turning a blind eye to) the tyrants of the region, those self-same tyrants also bear responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in the region. Corruption, nepotism and criminal ineptitude have lead to wide-spread poverty and social unrest, and I cannot blame the US for the disastrous domestic policies of the MENA countries.
But I can hold the US responsible for arming and paying these brutes as long as they do not threaten American interests. I understand that any state will naturally act in its own best self-interest, but don’t expect me to believe that the US administration is inherently more moral or righteous than the very criminals they so piously denounce. I’ve just about had it up to here with the arrogant self -righteousness and hypocrisy that flows from Capitol Hill.
Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “quasi-conspirational anti-US terms”. I don’t think I’ve been coy about my views or tried to hide behind any allusions. My position is quite clear, and I don’t think any conspiracy theories are really needed - the US will clearly do what it wants, when it wants, and then claim that it has every right to do so by dint of moral superiority.
“We’re the good guys - that’s all the excuse we need”
Iraq has been secular, more or less, since independence from GB. It has also been authoritarian, to greater or lesser degrees since. Prior to that the Colonial admin pursued a mixed policy, and prior to that there was the Ottomans, who towards the end of their rule were trying to rationalize the State on more or less secular grounds.
The dominant tradition, which is dominant in Islam generally, is the faqih class, the ulema, do not get directly involved in politics – i.e. they stay out of politics in the sense of running for office or governing. For Sunni and most Arab Shi’ism, as well as actually most Shiites ex-Twelver Iranian shi’a, the proper role of the ulema, the learned religious scholars, is to comment on the justice and correctness of a ruler, but not to rule.
As such, frequent comments one sees in re Islamic theocracies are wrong, Iran is probably one of the very few theocratic Muslim states in history, although those that I can think of, such as the Yazidi Imamate, or Ibadite Imamates are all shi’ite as well. This is off the top of my head and perhaps Tamerlane might want to comment if he has a reference on hand.
Well, on the surface it seems more attractive, as I myself would prefer – if it were supported – for such a state to emerge. I simply do not believe it is well supported at all, and all the historical experience to date says that imposing it simply continues a bad tradition. Let the Iraqis work it out.
1990-1991 was an error, not a deliberate act. It seems to me the Bush Admin I thought that Sadaam was weakened enough that it would just happen. It did not, but we were not prepared to enter in force – and while it is very easy to say that if only we had commited helos or air power, the Shiites would have won, that is not so clear. Technically supporting insurrection against the state could have been a violation of the cease fire and grounds for resumed hostilities. Further given our Gulf hosts were fearful of Shiite uprisings and takover (having oppressed Shiite minorities themselves), it seems unlikely permission would have been forthcoming for base usage.
In short, while regretable, I do not think this should be a stick to beat the current admin head with, per se. At least not ten years after the fact. Spilt milk.
It does, however, go to perception in the region and forms the context in which policy is recieved - such that while I can see why it happened, it is a big negative.
The US imports most of its oil from countries outside the middle east. http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml
Assuming that Islamists came to power in Iraq, what is the worst they could do? they way i see it, they could choose not to send oil to the US, but the US barely imports oil from Iraq anyway.
Iraq currently exports about 1.3 million barrels a day, maybe someday they will increase to 3-4 million. If they do, and they hate the US, how exactly will that effect US oil prices? Unless Iraq carries out a full scale cutback from 4 million to 1 million barrels a day (which would ruin their economy) i fail to see how they could have any real effect on US oil prices.
Not only that, but i’m sure Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico or another country would overproduce to make up for the cutbacks.
Your argument is based on the idea that the US would become dependent on oil from a country whose leadership hates us and scapegoats us. I doubt that would happen so i disagree.
I grudgingly agree with collounsbury on point 2.
On point 3, i seem to get the impression that you believe the US is responsible for democratization in the middle east, and if we don’t want it to happen it wont. I disagree, the US is not responsible for the goings on middle east. If they want democracy, i don’t think the US would put a stop to it.
Suffice it to say, people who don’t like the US will bitch no matter what the US does. When we support dictators in Egypt people bitch, when we threaten to cut off aid if Egypt refuses to release a human rights activists people bitch.
“Under the U.S. pressure, he was released last February and retried, now he has been convicted again. Everyone should respect the court’s ruling. However, the Americans no more respect anything or anyone, not even the sovereignty of their friendly states."
Why bother?
Overall i agree the US probably wants to create a democracy that is friendly to its interests, and that the populations would vote into power leaders who act in ways that threaten the US economy. And that the US will support friendly dictators because the idea of hateful democracies is not currently palatable. on one hand, supporting dictators makes peole in the middle east hate us and makes the US look hypocritical, but on the other hand democracy might lead to economic problems. I don’t know what hte solution is. Bush said himself in an interview with Brokaw that helping to liberalize the middle east would be a strong objective of his foreign policy. I guess time will tell what will happen.
My take - the US having a say in the type of government to be established in Iraq is a hedge against the possible implosion of Saudi Arabia. While it is true that the US imports very little oil from Iraq, the US in now in the position of relying on Iraq’s oil production capabilities in the future if need be. If Saudi Arabia implodes (monarchy is overthrown by group hostile to US interests or something along those lines), this would cause havoc in the markets around the world.
If you don’t remember (or weren’t not aware) that an initial concen leading up to Gulf War I (Desert Storm) was the fear that Iraq/Saddam would send troops into Saudi Arabia after capturing Kuwait (there was no one - save the Saudi military - to prevent him from capturing the Saudi oil fields). Hence Desert Shield.
If I remember correctly, someone posted a link regarding the current administration discussing the end of having a permanent presence in Saudi Arabia. If I understood the discussion correctly, the US would move it’s military presence to Iraq (not as an occupying force, but rather in the manner of having troops stationed at one or more military bases in Iraq).
So the concern isn’t so much whether a non-friendly government comes to power in Iraq, it’s that in addition to Saudi Arabia imploding that would freak people out. And the price of oil really isn’t the main concern - the key is the reaction of the markets if Saudi Arabia implodes. This would have serious consequences for the US economy.
I wouldn’t worry about a fundamentalist government. That will not happen except by force. Mathematically, it’s easy to demonstrate.
The population is 60% Shiite. In order to get 51% of the vote for a Shiite Ayatollah, something like 80% of them would have to vote for him. Not likely, considering Iran only voted 30% for religious parties.
The Sunnis and Kurds might have something to say about that too. Fortunately, since its’ not mathematically possible for a fundie government to get elected, it’s not a problem.
How many times have oil market mechanics been covered here? And yet we get the same silly ignorance again and again.
Yes indeed, but the price of oil is determined by global demand and production my dear fellow, global demand and global supply. It’s a highly liquid market, meaning that there are few barriers to production being sent to region X versus Y, such that global aggregate demand versus supply sets a world price with relatively minor regional variations due to minor barriers – largely issues re converting refineries optimized to refine one grade to another.
Well, my dear fellow, should you trouble yourself to come to some faint acquaintance with oil market dynamics, and I may add a general conception of basic economics and supply and demand in an efficient market, you would realize that the sudden removal of a significant amount of supply given a level of demand is going to have real price effects.
Now you did note, perhaps correctly that given a Iraqi embargo somewhere down the line by an “Islamist” regime that Saudi production could make up for the differnce. They are the single most important swing producer and indeed do play an outsized role in managing oil prices. If we presume Saudi benevolence on this issue – which at this moment is a good assumption, but perhaps not such a good assumption in 10 years – then you are right.
Now as to adaher’s intervention, I am afraid the poster is wrong and fundamentally misunderstands the issues.
Primo: a religiously conservative government may or may not mean one headed by Shiite Ayat Allahs or Ayatollahs. Quite the contrary, for example the Islamist government of Sudan (Sunni) was run by Generals of a secular background. The dominant strain is Islamism in the Sunni and Arab Shiite world is not for actual Imams to run a religious government, but for them to back a religiously motivated government.
It is as of yet unclear if Sunni and Shiite religious conservatives could come together to form a more or less Islamist or radically religious government. Their basic demands and precepts are in fact quite similar, and on the ground reports that I hear indicate that they have seen a good degree of Shiite-Sunni cooperation btw the Imams of the major mosques.
Given a parlaimentary government and the right circumstances, I can see such a government coming to power. That is the second lesson: don’t derive politicla observations from one’s own political system, and apply w/o background knowledge to a foreign one, it invariably leads to unsupportable conclusions.
**It is as of yet unclear if Sunni and Shiite religious conservatives could come together to form a more or less Islamist or radically religious government. Their basic demands and precepts are in fact quite similar, and on the ground reports that I hear indicate that they have seen a good degree of Shiite-Sunni cooperation btw the Imams of the major mosques.
**
That would be a strange thing if it happened. Not out of the question, but even assuming the imams can cooperate, I can’t see majority support for a Sharia system. It’s never been established democratically, only by force. Democracy has always resulted in secularism.
Sorry for jumping in here late, I just noticed this.
The problem with theocracy in Islamic history is that some of the possible examples are a bit equivocal. Iran today or the former Taliban government are easy.
However the early Caliphate, for example, is kind of difficult to piegonhole. Was it rule by the religious class? Well, sorta - The Rashidun Caliphs certainly all qualified as religious leaders in those pre-ulema days ( or at least three of them did - I’m not 100% certain about Uthman ). In a sense the military, political, and religious classes were difficult to separate at this point, at least at the highest levels ( local commanders, mostly hastily and sometimes shallowly converted tribal chieftains, were a different matter ). So I’d probably call the Rashidun Caliphate a theocracy.
The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus wasn’t really, despite the assumed mantle of religious leadership. For all of the trappings of religiousity, their religio-dynastic claims, and the air of religious sanction their rule represented, the Abbasid Caliphate probably was mostly not a theocracy either. The difference here is that the religious leaders, with the exception of the Caliph, whose role as religious leader was more theoretical and symbolic than practical, did not run the government. Real power lay with the military and political officers and a very separate religious class had emerged, which as Coll noted, mostly remained outside ( and somewhat semi-independant of ) the political sphere, except insomuch as they functioned as the judiciary ( but mostly ruling on non-political issues ). Similarly the later Umayyad Caliphate in al-Andalus claimed the title as a political/propaganda ploy to counter the growing Fatimid threat in North Africa - It was meant to have real religious legitimacy as a title, but it didn’t mean the state really switched to a theocracy in any real, functional sense. Same with Ottoman Sultan Selim I’s assumption of the title after persuading the Mamelukes’ captured pet Caliph to surrender it to him.
The Is’maili Qaramita ( Qarmatians ) were sort of quasi-theocratic, I believe. Perhaps some of the short-lived Kharijite groups could be said to have been as well. In these cases religious leaders functioned in dual roles as military chieftains. The Sanusi Brotherhood in southern Libya can probably be labeled a theocracy. The Mahdists ( in Sudan ), al-Mourabitun ( Almoravids ), al-Muwahiddun ( Almohades ), the Fatimids, the Safavids - All started as religious movements and were initially led by religious leaders, but quickly morphed into “secular” states ( secular in the very, very loose sense of power concentrated in hands other than the religious class ). Though perhaps Mahdist Sudan didn’t last long enough to transition fully.
So in general I’d agree with Coll - Theocracies in the strictest sense of the word are actually rather rare in Islamic history. Islam as a faith does heavily penetrate the political sphere of course - As noted above many dynasties in thwe Muslim world centered themselves on some point of claimed religious legitimacy and many leaders claimed religious mandates as part of that. But that it is not quite the same thing as true religious rule.
I can agree that we could get an Islamist governmnet. That doesn’t translate though to what happened in Iran or Afghanistan. I’m thinking more like what Turkey has.
First, whether you sitting in Florida and not knowing very much about the region, evidently, can “see” support for a Sharia system is fairly irrelevant. The reality on the ground is that the only “law” that is functioning are sharia courts being set up by mosques to handle the chaos.
Insofar as calls for the Sharia have come from both Sunni and Shiite factions and have had no small popular echo in terms of the springing up of such courts by popular appeal, I indeed do see no small demand for some sing influx of Islamic legal principals into the Iraqi system.
As for democracy always resulting in secularism, that’s patently false.