… or some nice oil profit… a reelection… Remember its not “americas” interests that are necessarily being defended. Coups have been the norm… not the shortcuts in the US foreign policy.
An islamically driven democracy might not be too "friendly" either.The oil explanation doesn’t stand up because if we wanted oil all we had to do was buy it. Hussein was more than willing to sell. It’s not about reelection because Iraq hurts Bush’s chances unless it’s a spectacular success.
Coups are more frequent than actual military interventions, but they are shortcuts and don’t always give you the result you want.
**An islamically driven democracy might not be too “friendly” either.
**
Perhaps not in the short term, but democracy and liberty tend to have a liberalizing, secularizing effect on a society. Besides, I think the result of an Iraq election will be a secular figure emerging as President or PM or however they decide to do things over there. That country is to religiously diverse. An ayatollah or imam would divide the country at a time when it needs unity.
Bush thought Iraq would be a sucess. Rummy talked about the cheering crowds and the quick transition. Polls were super high for Bush. They just didn’t count with reality interfering. The oil thing is not over… by controlling Iraqi oil in the long term the US might prevent oil prices from rising. Just being a buyer doesnt give you control of oil output.
The Iraqi might not want unity thou… or democracy… or a secular figure. Those are western values no ? As for the secularizing effect of democracy… what is Bush doing in power then !? Liberal democracy is different from simple democracy.
I agree with the idea that a democracy would be better in Iraq… if that is what will happen is quite a hard proposition thou. Civil war or some cooked up republic is more likely.
So far the war has gone mostly as planned. The only unknown was Sunni resistance and at least there they knew they didn’t know. There has only been one major surprise: no WMD found yet. Although that’s important, it has nothing to do with making Iraq’s transition to democracy successful.
Iraqis do want democracy, I don’t think there are any people in the world who don’t, except for the ones who think THEY should be in charge.
Bush is a secular figure. He’s not a priest, and he has not pushed through much of a religious agenda. A couple of little things here and there, not exactly the establishment of a theocracy.
hhmm… come on Adaher… your sounding like Karl Rove soon…
The war went as planned... even better. The occupation thou is a mess until now compared to any plans they might have. (Check the other current thread on that one.)
WMD and the UN do have something to do in making Iraq transition into something better (whatever that might be). Iraqis aren't buying into Rummy Bull. So either the US shows results pretty quick or the accusations of politics and oil will stick with the Iraqi population. (They already have with the rest of the world) Democracy isn't the final goal of all socieities on earth either. Some sort of political perfect. Islam was a religion created to make devout followers not independently minded middle class. Democracy might in fact not work within a islamic context... or work pretty differently. "The ones who think THEY should be in charge" are usually the people who in fact seek and have power unfortunately. Be they Chalabi or Islamic Mullahs. So you bet democracy is far from a certainty in Iraq. What if a islamic party will win the "elections" ? Do you think that will be acceptable to Washington ? If they let islamic parties exist in the first place.
Bush hasn't pushed a religous agenda ? Might not be theocracy I agree... but taking money from Sex-Ed and putting it on abstinence programs. He is actively trying to get abortion banned. His administration has cut funding from any international health programs that do not criticize abortion. One of General Garners aides that was going to deal with health issues in Iraq was taken off to put someone with more correct veiws on abortion. Open criticism and ban of gay marriage. Saying god in every speech several times. It might just be a vote getting tirade... but its religiously driven otherwise not secular.**What if a islamic party will win the “elections” ? Do you think that will be acceptable to Washington ? If they let islamic parties exist in the first place.
**
There are already ayatollahs on the governing council. If we are willing to appoint them I’m sure we’ll be willing to let them get elected.
Really, we’ll let anyone get elected, provided they are going to stand for reelection and respect the limits the constitution of Iraq sets. In a limited democratic government, it doesn’t matter how extreme someone is if they are restrained by the system, as is the case in most democracies.
Saying god in every speech several times. It might just be a vote getting tirade… but its religiously driven otherwise not secular.
Sometimes religious people will be elected, sometimes not so religious. As long as they respect constitutional limits there’s no problem.
There’s no profit in buying oil from someone else, silly.
Also, from a state security point of view, buying oil from someone else means you are dependent on them to keep you supplied in the future. Stealing their oil for yourself eliminates that dependency risk.
Well, we aren’t stealing it. So I don’t know what you mean.
adaher, The US government already said that an Islamic state was out of the question. It was discussed in several threads here at the time. The elections were to be limited to whatever parties and programs the USA found acceptable. That is not democracy in my book.
From sailor
Initially I’d have to say this is true. How is it wrong though, Sailor? The Iraqis have no tradition of democracy at all. How is it wrong for us to guide them (or even force them) initially so that they don’t put into power more of the same ole same ole that they’ve always had?? Its still democracy if we limit the candidates initially so as to exclude the radical element…its just LIMITED democracy. Maybe the Iraqi people NEED to be guided initially, to build up a tradition of democracy? Democracy isn’t as easy of a thing to do, and it IS very easy to slip back. Even in the US we have come close several times ourselves.
I know that using WWII analogies makes your teeth ache, but I’m fairly sure that we didn’t let Nazi or facist candidates run initially in Germany either. NOW however they can run whoever they damn well want without our ‘help’…true? Why will it be different in Iraq? You REALLY believe that 10 or 20 years from now America will STILL be running roughshod over them?? And you an American, knowing our nation attention span?? Come on Sailor. Hell, when the next new President is sworn in (hopefully this election) things will already begin to change as the new Prez starts to put his own stamp (and spin) on this mess.
From rjung
That would be true I suppose, IF we were stealing it. I’ve seen no indication that this is true. You have a cite for that? As far as I know, no free oil is currently being shipped to the US (or anywhere else) directly. Is there? I think that we SECURED the oil, thats true enough. I’ll conceed that this was the major reason for this stupid war…to secure a resouce that is VITAL to US interests. All the rest (WMD, freeing the Iraqi people, etc etc) was just window dressing.
I think that, by putting a democratically elected government in Iraq (IF we can pull it off), that is (in theory) more closely tied to the US, is a step in securing the oil for the future. However, I don’t see that we’ve STOLEN the oil by any means. I don’t even think we are going to get an indefinite discount on BUYING oil from Iraq. We WANT the Iraqis to be strong economically, as well as to be a democracy. A strong trading partner, with its people educated, employed at a good standard of living, and (hopefully) if not pro-US at least neutral to the US, is useful to us, as we can buy oil from them and sell them our own products. We LIKE trade. Stealing their oil gives us none of this.
From Rashak Mani
THIS is a ‘religious agenda’ to you? lol. Well, all I can say is it shows your ignorance about America and American politics. Abortion is a ‘bread and circus’s’ issue in the US. Its a way for politicians to feed the people so they can get all riled up about something…and then do nothing more than pay lip service to it. Basically, its a shell game, where they can distract the publics attention while they do other things. It will NEVER amount to anything. I remember the scare mongering going on before Bush got elected that he’d repeal Roe vs Wade and outlaw abortion. Not gona happen in this reality. As to the rest, again its more lip service stuff making political hay than substance. ALL Presidence do stuff like this. Most of the sheep that make up our citizenry LOVE this stuff. Lets them get all worked up (on one side or the other) without ever amounting to anything.
Bush might be bad (ok, he is), but no one is EVER going to be President of the US and push a true ‘religious agenda’ through. Aint gona happen, so please wipe the foam from your mouth. 
-XT
The US defeated the Nazis… so no Nazi in the new germany is reasonable. Now the US defeated the Baath Party… so why exclude Islamics ? Unless this is a war on the Muslim religion… Still sounds like your making a pro-US govt… not a democracy.
>> its just LIMITED democracy
Yep. They tell you who you can elect. They prevent you from making the mistake of voting for the wrong candidate. Same as Cuba. Same as China.
Well, I wrote a long an involved reply to both Sailors and Rashak Mani’s posts which was quite good if I do say so myself…but the god damn server ate it again and I’m too frustrated to try and recreate it all.
In summary, I’ll just say that this is the FIRST Iraqi Democratic government. Its very different than China, or Cuba. In China and Cuba the rulers aren’t elected at all as far as I know (Does Fidel run? lol) but thats not the point. In those countries the government is there until someone dies. In a DEMOCRATIC country, the government is transitory. Look at the vast difference between the Clinton adminstration and the Bush adminstration for an example. Thats the beauty of a Democratic government…in 4 years (or whatever your election period is) you’ll have another shot at throwing the bums out and replacing them with someone more representitive of ‘the will of the people’ (i.e. you get a new set of bums). Ok, so INITIALLY there will be limits set on who is a candidate in Iraq…presumably they will have to be moderate, pro-America and secular. Most likely these candidates WON’T represent ‘the will of the people’…I’ll conceed that.
However, as the Iraqi people HAVE no tradition or even understanding of Democracy, I don’t see this as a bad thing. Why would it be a good thing to, right off the bat, have the Iraqi people put in a strong fundamentalist Shi’a government (thats my guess as to what they WOULD elect, if given the chance…just an opinion)?? This is, after all, just the FIRST government. What this gives the Iraqi people is a taste of what Democracy is like…think of it as a teaching tool. Though a limited choice of candidates is all they get, its a hell of a lot more of a choice than they ever had before, no?
Eventually the US will pull back from Iraq. Anyone who actually knows anything about America knows this to be true. Its not from any shining alturistic principals I’m talking here but simple common sense and a look back at history. No way we are keeping 150k troops in Iraq indefinitely. Not gona happen (the only country we still have troops stationed at in any kinds of numbers, as far as I know, is South Korea, and thats a token force to act as a trip wire). The attention span of America would never last long enough to continue to force Iraq to limit elections to only our ‘choosen’ candidates (see Germany and Japan). American NEVER hangs out long in places like this (unless you want to count Puerto Rico or Guam…and my understanding is THEY wanted to stay with us, not vise versa). Eventually the Iraqi people will be on their own as far as who they elect goes…and this is good ‘training’ for that time.
If nothing else, a change in administration will change our policies in Iraq. Eventually, the Iraqi people will be free to elect whatever fools they want too without US interference. So I don’t see the problem. Who cares about this first government? Why get so riled up about it? To me, it would be a very bad thing to allow the Iraqi people a totally unlimited general election in their first real election ever. They aren’t ready for that at this point, never having had the chance to do so in the past. Democracy takes time to learn and understand, and this government with training wheels is probably the best thing they can get to do that for them.
It would also be stretching credibility into fantasy land to expect the US or any other country that, having won a war (not talking about right or wrong here), to put in initially a government that was against them. Not going to happen in this universe, and has nothing to do with the US…its human nature.
Anyway, this is a poor shadow of my first reply, but I’m beginning to really get annoyed with the server coming back at me saying I’m not logged in (when I am) and eating my posts. I guess I need to stop being lazy and saving them before I hit the submit button…
-XT
Because that’s what they want? After all, the very definition of “democracy” is “representational government.”
You are working on the presumption that a democratic government (especially an American-style democratic government) is what’s best for the people of Iraq, and that all other forms of government are inferior by comparison. Unfortunately, there is nothing to support that point, other than nauseating mindless jingoism.
And the United States has not been a supporter of democratic governments in the Middle East anyway – just look at 1953, when Mohammed Mossadegh , the democratically-elected President of Iran, was overthrown by the CIA and replaced with their puppet…
So you’re admitting that this was not a “war of liberation,” but is instead a “war of conquest,” eh?
From rjung
No, I made no statement that Democracy (‘especially American-style democracy’) is the best government for the people to Iraq, nor did I state that all other forms of government are ‘inferior by comparison’, I simply live in the real world. In the REAL world, the situation is what it is…America presently occupies Iraq. Might have slipped your notice, I’m not sure. If you ask me though, I certainly DO think that Democracy (though not necessarily ‘American-style’ Democracy) is best for the Iraqi people, and it IS superior to all other types of government that I can think of, but I didn’t STATE that in any of my arguements. Thats another debate though, comparitive governments.
Getting back to that real world thingy: Rightly or wrongly, America went to war. America won its war, and Iraq is a defeated power with no government anymore…said government having been destroyed by America. One of the primary goals (one that wasn’t expressly stated, as it probably would have been fairly unpopular) was for America to set up a stable government in the region that would be friendly to America.
What form of government would you expect America to attemp to set up?? Communist? Of COURSE we would want to set up a government that is like our own…its only natural. How is this any different than any other country when they win a war? When Russia conquered Eastern Europe, they didn’t attempt to set up a parlimentary government. Is it ‘best’ for the people? Who the hell knows?!? You certainly don’t, and neither do I. But to expect America to do it differently is to be living in some ivory tower somewhere. Come on down and join reality…
From rjung
No extenuating circumstances there at all, ehe? Pretty black and white was it? America bad, rest of the world good, ehe? Must be nice to live in a black and white world, rjung, without all that bother with shades of grey. Would be a hijack to get into this subject, but I invite you to lay that out in a thread in GD sometime if you really don’t know all that went on in that affair.
I’d be the first to admit that America isn’t always in the right…we make mistakes just like everyone else. The fact that we fuck up occationally seems to facinate some of you people out there, and fill you with delight. I never have got that. However, because America MAY have fucked up in Iran in the 50’s, how is that germain to this discussion? Or are you stating that, having installed a Democratic government in Iraq we plan on, at some future time, overthrowing said government with the CIA?? I’m not sure I’m reading your point.
From rjung
What I ‘admit’ is that, living in the real world, I can see that there were many factors involved in this stupid war. Its that pesky shades of grey thing again that you don’t bother yourself with.
The most critical were the ones that weren’t being said, IMO by our lovely administration. If you care at all, I think that the Administration took an oppertunity that presented itself to destroy an odious government in a vital and strategically important region so that they could insert a Democratic government that would be more favorable to America, as well as provide some stability to the region that often looks like its about ready to explode. There were all kinds of those pesky shades of grey in the issue, with the administration being neither the font of all evil nor a shinning example of what America SHOULD be. I’d say that the Administrations goals and reasons were more base than pure, but that doesn’t mean that ALL of them were wrong. I’ve discussed my thoughts on both the good and the bad of the war in countless threads, some of which I’ve seen you in, so you SHOULD know my views on this already…I won’t go into this again here. If you want to know, look them up. My views on it all have changed considerably since the war started.
Whether or not they pull it all off in Iraq though is another matter. Whether or not it was a wise thing to do is also another matter. Personally, for what its worth, I think they WILL pull it off (at a tremendous cost that we can ill afford to pay, in both money, lives and good will), and I think it was incredibly stupid (and expensive) of them to do it in the first place.
So tell me, rjung, since you have not only some special insight into the Iraqi people by also the ability to gaze into the future: What IS best for the Iraqi people? Another totalitarian regime? A nice fundamentalist Islamic theocracy a la Iran? Are those preferable to the hated Democracy? If given the choice, I have no doubts that one of the first two options would be what they would pick RIGHT NOW, so should they be allowed too?
Reguardless, maybe you could explain again why whats happening is a bad thing anyway? I mean, after all, that EVENTUALLY the Iraqi people will be able to vote in who ever they want, including your vaunted Islamic fundamentalists, some strong man, or who knows what, if thats what they truely want. Is it maybe that you don’t like the thought of showing them another way FIRST, so they can make an informed decision in the future that has you so riled up?? Again, maybe you could expand on what YOU think is best, or what YOU think America should do.
/aside
If Democracy is so nasty, what IS the best form of government then rjung? I’m curious what your thoughts on that might be. Would be a hijack here, but start a thread on what you think is best sometime and I’d love to join in.
/aside
-XT
Hhhmmm interesting post xtisme… (hate losing my posts too…grr… )
Well your ideas about needing a “imposed” first government are correct. Truly a democratic first government is nigh impossible or at all desirable. How these choices of first govt. are made will be very important. Especially since there are several “factions” withing the US govt… each one pushing their own Iraqis.
You are wrong or didnt give enough attention to some aspects thou:
US presence will be required for much longer… even if Bush deservedly loses the election. Why ? Iraqi instability and weak goverment. Instability due to US troops, new govt. and pressure from neighbors. Weak because there are few real leaders in Iraq and few alternative political organizations. These things take time to get organized, gain political legitimacy and the country needs to stabilize more too. All these won’t require 150k troops… but a sizable amount will be necessary. The specter of civil war will remain strong for sometime in Iraq no matter how well things go.
Democracy as an objective. The US government loves dictators up to a point. They are easily bribable and their motivations are clear usually. Semi-Democratic oligarchies are a mess and might fall to pressures from popular opinion. So even thou Bush promised a democratic Iraq… that might not exactly be their objective or good for the US. Others have mentioned the inadequacy of democracy in Iraq… Dictators have a stability that popular republics dont have. My bet is that a “democracy” of sorts will be implanted… but corruption and tribal arrangements will make it akin to an oligarchy. The first government is important because it will establish the “rules of the game”. If the US gives them too much freedom… they will establish a power base and they will keep a hold on power no matter what. If the US meddles too much that might weaken them enough for some other party to attempt a coup of sorts. The US will probably accept a heavy handed and pretty corrupt halfway democracy I think.
Religious factors will be pretty destabilizing. Iraqi from another poll seem to indicate that they want a secular Iraq. Clerics and Imams thou are some of the few legitimate internal leaders that survived Saddam. They are probably power hungry and opportunity is knocking… added to an anti-muslim Bush goverment… that gives Clerics a lot of power. If they will play the democratic game or denounce it might make a lot of difference.
In the end other islamic states will be actively trying to make Iraq fail… the rest of the world will be less than helpful if the US doesnt share power… and there are too many elements within Iraq that will try to get power the traditional armed way. How much serious effort is the US prepared to put in to keep Iraq stable enough so a “real” democracy takes place ? Especially since elections tend to get people like Bush, Berlusconi, Chirac, Shroeder and Arnold elected ? (As well as the Governor of Brasilia… a well known crook.)
Tricky situation if you ask me, if the elections are not “cooked” the end result would be, most probably religiously flavoured, and the Sunni and Kurds will get screwed, if the elections are arranged so that only a USA chosen bunch of candidates can win that goverment would have zero legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis… and most other people too.
In the first case things could mutate towards an Iranian look-alike state (how ironic) and in the former case Iraqis would hardly think that democracy is all peachy.
This has to be carried with extreme caution.
Well, if we want to rebuild Iraq into a “model of democracy and freedom,” then that requires giving the Iraqi people the freedom to elect whoever they want. That’s part and parcel of the whole “democratic government,” after all. In my opinion, compromising this position means an admission that the whole “model of democracy and freedom” stuff is all just glurge.
And yes, if I had my druthers, and the people of Iraq voted for an American-hostile government that told us to leave within 30 days, we should respect their wishes and do so. It may seem odd to you, maybe, but I believe in that kooky “will of the people” thing.
So you’re saying the current Administration is as amoral as the Soviets?
I’m merely demonstrating that the United States’ desire in “promoting democracy” has always been derailed the moment someone elects a President who doesn’t play nice with us.
[ul]
[li]We overthrew the president of Iran because he wanted to nationalize the oil fields (owned by Britan).[/li][li]We overthrew the president of Guatemala when he wanted to nationalize the United Fruit Company (owned by Rockefeller).[/li][li]We forced the president of Ecuador to resign because we didn’t like his leftist politics, then installed a CIA operative as the new vice-president.[/li][li]We overthrew the democratically-elected president of the Dominican Republic for his political views and installed a right-wing junta instead.[/li]{*]We overthrew the President of Ecuador because we didn’t like his non-socialist policies.
[li]We overthrew the President of Indonesia because he declared his country to be neutral during the Cold War.[/li][li]We assassinated the first democratically-elected leader of Chile because he nationalized American-owned firms there.[/li][/ul]
Forget all that bullstuff about a democratic Iraq; the real US foreign policy is “any government that kowtows to us is acceptable.” If you don’t have a problem with this, well… that says it all, really.
I don’t recall ever saying democracy was nasty; if anything, I think it’s a great thing, when it’s allowed to reflect what the people want.
The problem is, that’s not what’s being allowed in Iraq.
From Rashak Mani
Not sure how I was “wrong”, as I don’t think I really gave a firm opinion as to how long the US was going to be there. To be honest, I have no idea. I DO know that sometime in the future, the US will gradually lessen its commitment there. We will begin bringing troops home. We will gradually give more and more control over to the Iraq government and greater and greater freedom of selection to the Iraqi people in their choice for THEIR government. Again, this isn’t alturism or pie in the sky, but practicality with a dose of history to back it up. America and the American people have a very short attention span as far as these kinds of things go. I give it maybe 4 years, with a maximum of 8 years, tops. If we are still there at that point, it will be a MAJOR fuck up and god knows what the consequences will be…
As to some of your other points. I think that the initial government will be more of a caretaker role, organizing and establishing itself in Iraq and in the world…sort of laying the groundwork for the future, establishing relations with the rest of the world, laying out their constitution, teaching their people with this democracy thing is all about, etc etc. It WILL be weak, and probably won’t be that representative of the ‘will of the people’ initially. However, it will be the first choice of government that any of those folks ever got. Don’t discount that. Even a poor choice is better than no choice at all, and we are making the assumption (albiet maybe a good one) that ALL the candidates ARE pretty well unacceptable to the people as a whole. Maybe this won’t be the case…who knows? At any rate, I still think that it will be a learning experience for the people reguardless, and therefor not a total waste.
I’d say that we’ll gradually step down our military commitment, though I agree that SOME commitment will be needed for years to come. It may even mean that some form of quasi-perminent stationing of troops is needed a la South Korea, though only time will tell. I seriously doubt that there will be a full blown civil war unless America majorly fucks up (as opposed to the minor fuckups we’ve seen to date). Again, only time will tell.
From Rashak Mani
I’ve seen this statement or something similar a lot on this board: “US government loves dictators up to a point.” A lot of people on this board absolutely LOVE to throw it at the US that they work with dictators and other low life scum. To my mind, the US works with whats at hand. If an area is stategically important to the US, and that region happens to be controlled by a dictator, then the US does what it has too. Iraq not withstanding, the US ISN’T in the habit of installing new governments…doing so is expensive and messy. Oh, I won’t deny that the CIA has played fast and loose in the past and DEPOSED other governments for what they thought were good reasons (and for the most part turned out the be bad ones), but thats not exactly the same thing. Covert support, or influencing certain groups isn’t exactly the same as us building a new government FOR a country from scratch, no?
Certainly the US might try and influence a certain type of government to happen or not happen. However, when the US is committed to PUTTING IN a new government, like after WWII, it invariably attempts to put in a government like itself…a democracy (of some sort of other). I’m trying to think of an example where the US actually committed to put in a new government in a country that WASN’T a democracy of some form. I can’t think of one off the top of my head, but if someone has an example I’d be willing to modify my view on this. I’m talking direct and offical involvement like what we have in Iraq here, not CIA blunderings.
Anyway, sorry for the digression. To continue: Why do you think that “So even thou Bush promised a democratic Iraq… that might not exactly be their objective or good for the US.” Why wouldn’t it be best for the US for a strong and stable democratic Iraq? The ME is stategically vital to America (as well as the rest of the industrialized world) and having a strong and stable government/country in the region I would think is EXACTLY what America wants.
Why would we spend the kind of money we’ve poured into Iraq and expect anything less? To use my teeth grating analogy again, why did America care to put in a strong democratic government in Germany? After all, it sure cost us a lot, and was hard to do. There was a lot of initial resentment and resistance. So why bother?? To act as a strong ally against the Soviets of course (economically, idealogically, politically and militarily). In other words, it was in our best interests to do so. IMO, its in our best interests to do so here as well, there for we will. Whats the price tag on this mess up to now? Over $100 billion US? You really think we spent that kind of money just to get the same ole same ole there? Bush is stupid, but NO ONE is THAT stupid.
“The US will probably accept a heavy handed and pretty corrupt halfway democracy I think.” Obviously I disagree with this. I guess time will bare one of us out though.
From Rashak Mani
Do you have access to that poll? Thats counter intuitive to my understanding of the climate there, and would be interesting to see if true. I agree, religion is a key factor. Are you stating that the Bush government is anti-muslim in fact, or perception? If perception, I’d tend to agree with you…the perception in the ME (and in many parts of the world too) is that the Bush government is anti-muslim. If you are stating this as a fact though, you will need to back that up. I’d say you are dead wrong. America isn’t anti-muslim, or anything else. Sure, there was some backlash against muslim’s in the US post 911 (by the citizens mostly), but there has never been a policy from the government thats anti-muslim AFAIK. We didn’t attack Afghanistan and Iraq because they were muslims. We don’t support Israel because we like jews and hate muslims. I’m willing to be proved wrong though…here’s your chance.
The key to Iraq’s future is in the next 4 years I’d say. If they are able to get their constitution drafted and ratified in a timely manner (for all I know they already have done this). If its a strong constitution that is respected by the majority and enforced to the letter that will help. If they are able to get a government elected and running in that time period, and if the candidates put forth aren’t TOO far off the will of the people (read too hand picked by the US). It will all ride on that first ‘caretaker’ governments actions…what they do and how they are percieved by the Iraqi people. If it does well then I think we’ll see a great lessening in the number of attacks and sabotage in Iraq. If not, then all hell could certainly break loose.
From Rashak Mani
I doubt that the rest of the states in the ME will be ACTIVELY trying to make Iraq fail. Some will be taking a ‘wait and see’ course. Some will be sure it will fail on its own. Some will be pretty wary of it succeeding. Some may take COVERT steps (i.e. sending independant ‘freedom fighters’) to Iraq as has already happened. But I seriously doubt any country there will ACTIVELY be doing a thing. If for no other reason than they don’t want to piss off the US, at least with Bush still at the helm. Can’t say I would blame them either…I sure would be keeping a low profile until he’s booted out.
Just guessing, but I’d say that other countries may not be helpful in the reconstruction, but if the US pulls it off and Iraq stabilizes (big IF admittedly), the rest of the world will be more than happy to buy oil from Iraq…which, in the end, is what they need most. Markets for their oil and the influx of capital. The free exchange of goods and all that.
However, ask yourself this: If America DOES pull this off, and Iraq DOES get a strong and democratic government, if their oil industry comes back fully online and their people begin to get full employment again, who do you think, in the long term, the Iraqi people will be closer too? America who dumped in massive amounts of money and help, or the ‘rest of the world’ that sat by in a huff because they were pissed off at America? Oh sure, the Iraqi’s aren’t stupid…they know that America caused much of the damage, and they aren’t likely to forget the war.
However, as time goes by, those feelings will blunt and go into the background (I seriously doubt that many people in Germany or Japan resent the war or defeat aspects against America these days) and if the people are fairly happy (i.e. employed, empowered as citizens of a democratic country, reasonably safe, well fed and healthy, etc etc) then who will they feel closer too do you think? I’m not sure of the answer, even though it was a leading question, but I suspect that it will be America that will forge the more lasting relationship when all the dust settles. Of course, this is predicated on all this actually working, but the ‘rest of the world’ would be well served if, when it becomes more appearent that it MIGHT just work, they put aside their (perhaps justified) pique at America and began assisting Iraq in its efforts. Its called realpolitic and I think that you WILL see it happen if things settle down some in Iraq. Just an opinion on my part though…
I’d say, rightly or wrongly, the the US is pretty well committed at this point. Again, you don’t spend the kind of money we’ve spent and then back out. Even a change in administration next year won’t have us backing out of Iraq now. The area is too vital, and we’ve invested too much nation prestiege on this…as well as too much money and resources. We might very well let Afghanistan rot (a travisty IMO), but no way will we let something similar happen in Iraq now that we are there. The region is just too vital to US interests to allow something like that to happen, no matter WHO is the president (well, unless the Green Party president takes office I suppose :)).
Good discussion. You raised some good points Rashak Mani, though I think you tend to let your bias against the US get the better of your logic. Remember, the US is neither the font of all holyness nor the font of all evil…its just a country run by men, same as any other. It does good as well as bad. Also, remember that sometimes even a blind squirel like Bush can find an acorn or two…
-XT
From rjung
Iraq has never had a democratic government before. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Their people are not familiar with how one opperates, on the ramifications of their decisions, or even what it all means. That said, it would be very easy to have someone who DOES know a little about how such a system opperates (say an ambitious Mullah with political ambitions and an already high position due to his religious affiliations) to short circuit the system. How is THIS the ‘will of the people’ to you? Why are you so opposed to taking things slow? It seems to me that if you had your ‘druthers’ the people would elect a government that, on coming to power would immediately toss the US out…and then what? How stable do you think such a fledgling government would be?
At a guess, I’d say it wouldn’t be long before President Mullah becaue Dictator for life Mullah. How often has this happened in world history? Too many to count. Is that the ‘will of the people’ you desire? Just because its what they THINK they want at the moment, in their ignorance of democracy and how the system works…and can potentially work FOR them??
You seem to be wanting the Iraqi people to sprint RIGHT NOW, when they haven’t even learned to crawl yet, let alone walk. Now why is that? Whats your problem with letting them get their feet under them, and THEN letting them make those kinds of earth shaking decisions FROM AN INFORMED PERSPECTIVE??
Perhaps you don’t WANT the people of Iraq to be able to make an informed decision, but instead maybe you WANT them to make such a profound decision from ignorance?? Why does it HAVE to happen right now, in this first government? After all, in successive governments the people WILL have more and more freedom of choice for what they really want…and they will ALSO have some understanding of the whole process. Why is that a bad thing, rjung?? I really don’t get it, so please explain it to me.
From rjung
Love twisting my words, don’t ya? Whats your point though? I made no statement about whether the Soviet Union of old was either moral or amoral…nor did I make any statement about whether the US is or isn’t. The POINT I was trying to make to you was that it would be unreasonable to expect the Soviet Union, in territories it conquered, to install a form of government that was opposed to it. In addition, it seems pretty natural to me that if a country is going to go to the trouble of installing a new government from scratch, its probably going to install a government like itself, be it democratic, communist, parlimentary or monarchy. After all, if its good enough of them, its good enough for whoever you are trying to impose it onto, no? lol
As to the rest of your post, mainly its off topic so I won’t bother. You know as well as I do that half your examples are pure bullshit, with all kinds of extenuating circumstances. I will also note that most of them happened during the cold war, and in a whole other era of American politics…I don’t see much of that kind of thing happening now. So again, I don’t see the relevance to this discussion…we are talking about whats happening NOW.
Can you back up your proposition that America really doesn’t want a true democratic government in Iraq? Is there any evidence that we are simply paying it lip service and what we really want is "the real US foreign policy is “any government that kowtows to us is acceptable.” "?
Again, the times I can think of that the US actually bothered to create a new government, AFAIK, turned out the be strong democratically oriented governments that don’t exactly kowtow to us and haven’t for years. They are also, for the most part, pretty strong countries in their own right. But then, maybe you don’t agree:
From rjung
Bolding is mine to make the point. So the US desire in “promoting democracy” has ALWAYS “been derailed to moment someone elects a president who doesn’t paly nice with us”. Funny, I forgot reading in the papers when the German president was deposed by the US. Could you put in the link to that article to help me get rid of my ignorance?? For that matter, could you list all the Democratically elected governments that opposed the recent war that the US deposed in, say the last year? Or just the Democratically elected governments that have been deposed by the Bush administration would be good. Actually, list both so we can see the escalation of deposed governments by the Bush administration. For comparison, could you list all the Democratically elected governments deposed from the past administrations from say 1980 to the present, so we can see the vast amounts of directly deposed governments by the US, and compare it to Bush’s record? Thanks in advance for the cites.
-XT