Will the US stick around for the long haul?

[LionOfLoyalty]

Frankly, my opinion on the war to destroy Saddam is that it's a wonderful idea. However, I'm worried that we'll see a repeat of Afghanistan and the US will leave before it's job is done. What we really need is a MacArthur-esque post-war occupation of Iraq in order to turn it into a democratic country. I'm worried we may just see the installation of a friendly dictator. It's essential that the United States follow through on it's promise to bring democracy to Iraq, for the sake of it's credibility as well as for the sake of the region itself. What do you think?

[localbrew]

You pose a serious question, one I have given much thought too. My initial reaction some months ago when this question first came up was on the side of occupation. But the more I think about it the more unwise I think this would be.

After all we are dealing with cultural and religious ideologies that may not be commensurate to democracy. Maybe the best we can hope for is to install honest Iraqi’s in a government and hope they stay honest. This will ultimately depend on the will of the people. We simply can’t impose our will on an entire population of a country.

Maybe it is enough we just go into Iraq, oust Saddam and his cronies and disarm that country of ALL its WMD. Then of course before leaving take our share of oil as payment for our efforts, etc. Set them up with a neat little moderate government and see how it goes. After all Iraq is not exactly a poor country. They have plenty of oil revenue to provide for the people if they choose to do so.

At the end of the day our goal is to get rid of the WMD not to tell them how to live. If they end up trying it all over again in 10-20 years we can pay them another visit.

I mean look at what is next on our plate. It is of course N. Korea. Should we occupy that country as well? I think not but we will have to rid them of their nuclear proliferation aspirations one way or the other. Despite S. Korean popular public opinion of appeasement for the sake of God knows what.

[LionOfLoyalty]

But frankly, I don't think the main goal should be disarmment. I don't think this war is worth doing unless it's going to provide true democracy amongst the Arab middle east. Without that terrorism can never be fully stopped. We need to turn Iraq into an example for the rest of the middle east. If not, we're just going to have to do it all over again later.

[Israelite-Tribe]

Umm.. actually setting up a democracy in Iraq would be a bad idea considering that Israel is right now the only democracy in the Middle East and that is part of the reasons why America supports it a whole lot... Now if Iraq becomes a democracy... America will lean to less support of Israel... it will still support Israel alot but less than before...

[ibrodsky]

A democratic Arab state, particularly one that has been historically opposed to Israel's existence, would be a boon to Israel.

3 or 4 democratic Arab states would be an even greater boon.

I wouldn't worry so much about US support if the enemy behaved in civilized fashion.

[LionOfLoyalty]

Perhaps in the short term that could occur, however I believe that US support for Israel is built on more than just Israel's position as the Middle East's only democracy. It also is built on the long historical ties in economic, technological, spiritual and military endeavours. The United States and Israel's fate are inexorably linked, and I think the government of the United States is aware of that. Furthermore, I would hope that once the Arabs have democratic governments, and it is shown to the Arab people that the US is here to free them from the despots they currently suffer under, the anti-american, and by extension anti-Israel sentiment will decline. This would of course, be the best case scenario.

Originally posted by Israelite-Tribe
Umm.. actually setting up a democracy in Iraq would be a bad idea considering that Israel is right now the only democracy in the Middle East and that is part of the reasons why America supports it a whole lot... Now if Iraq becomes a democracy... America will lean to less support of Israel... it will still support Israel alot but less than before...

[localbrew]

Iraq really isn’t an Islamic state in the true sense. It is really more of a secular state. They actually have pig farms in Iraq. Tariq Aziz is actually a Catholic. So I guess if any Arab country could become democratic it would be Iraq. Still the vast majority are Muslims.

I just don’t see how they would get from the Koran to democracy. But I guess anything is possible over time.

[cerulean]

Iraq used to be a relatively progressive Arab state. Like most Arab states, it has regressed over the past 30-40 years. In theory, re-reform should be possible.

Interesting article on Iraqi treatment of women currently:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6132

[LionOfLoyalty]

Having an Islamic democracy is not impossible, Turkey is living proof. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there was a time, around WWI and WWII when people that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy, and today very few people would think that.

Originally posted by localbrew
I just don’t see how they would get from the Koran to democracy. But I guess anything is possible over time.

[localbrew]

Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Having an Islamic democracy is not impossible, Turkey is living proof. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there was a time, around WWI and WWII when people that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy, and today very few people would think that.

Let’s be absolutely clear here with your statement about Catholicism. As an institution the Catholic Church has never been democratic period. The Pope is the absolute ruler. That is not to say that at any time in history since democracy was invented Catholics, the faithful, were ever against democracy. There is a distinct difference. I don’t know if a religion should be democratic or not because I am an agnostic. I have no view on the subject but please don’t try and spin democracy in the Catholic Church with people who are Catholic.

Secondly, a religion is not the same thing as a government. Any religion which attempts to become a country for the sake of religion is doomed to failure in the long term. This is exactly what is wrong with Islamic States and why they are in so much trouble now. When religion drives politics instead of national interests those nations become a prisoner of religion instead of national aspirations.

Israel is coming perilously close to falling into this same trap by calling itself as Jewish State. I do realize about 20% of Israeli citizens are of Arab origin but still you can see the parallel I am drawing. Current Israeli law as I understand it only allows Jews to immigrate and become citizens albeit they are from differing cultures. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

My basic point is religion and politics do not mix well.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by localbrew ... a religion is not the same thing as a government. Any religion which attempts to become a country for the sake of religion is doomed to failure in the long term. ... My basic point is religion and politics do not mix well. Are you familiar with the history of Israel? Except for its strong faith foundation there would have been no nation. This is a nation that claims a mandate from G_d.

The US too has a strong faith foundation and was the creation of men and women of faith seeking to establish a nation where they were free to exercise that faith without persecution. How far we have fallen.

How sad that people have forgotten the roots of these two great nations.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Frankly, my opinion on the war to destroy Saddam is that it's a wonderful idea. However, I'm worried that we'll see a repeat of Afghanistan and the US will leave before it's job is done. What we really need is a MacArthur-esque post-war occupation of Iraq in order to turn it into a democratic country. I'm worried we may just see the installation of a friendly dictator. It's essential that the United States follow through on it's promise to bring democracy to Iraq, for the sake of it's credibility as well as for the sake of the region itself. What do you think?

We do a good job at war, but in the last 40 years, not a great job at the rebuilding process. I think they are looking at a "Marshall Plan" rebuilding process, with military governors eventually turning into an elected governence, but this takes time.

Radical Islam wont stand still either, and its my bet they will do all the can to undermine anything the US does to install Sharia law and make Iraq an Islamic Republic.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
What we really need is a MacArthur-esque post-war occupation of Iraq in order to turn it into a democratic country... What do you think?

The post-war occupation and rehabilitation of Iraq are some of the worst parts of the whole idea of going to war.

Here in the U.S., we don't have the funds to even rehabilitate large parts of our own country, much less counter the ongoing recession.

I don't know where we're going to get the money to give to Iraq, other than further taxing successful Americans.

And once again, looking at our past history, every time the U.S. has lent it support to any Muslim regime (including Iraq and Afghanistan), they have always used our own funds, weapons and training to attack us later.

When I see who exactly is expected to assume control of post-war Iraq, I am dismayed.

It seems that the South of Iraq will be handed over to a bunch of Shiite fanatics, all of whom could win an Ayatollah Khomeini look-alike contest. We've got to be out of our minds to fund and arm those people.

It's one thing to topple a brutal Arab dictator as a warning shot for the rest of America's Islamic enemies, but to try to rebuild an entire Arab country is really much more than the American taxpayer should be asked to do, especially during a recession.

[cerulean]

It seems that the South of Iraq will be handed over to a bunch of Shiite fanatics, all of whom could win an Ayatollah Khomeini look-alike contest. We've got to be out of our minds to fund and arm those people.

I have to agree that would be a huge mistake.

It's one thing to topple a brutal Arab dictator as a warning shot for the rest of America's Islamic enemies, but to try to rebuild an entire Arab country is really much more than the American taxpayer should be asked to do, especially during a recession.

There are a number of oil-rich nations that could assist Iraq. American beneficence will not be an occasion for later gratitude, if history is any indicator.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I don't know where we're going to get the money to give to Iraq, other than further taxing successful Americans.
Actually, with the revenue available through Iraqi oil properly administered, the whole country can be turned to prosperity and it won't cost the US a penny.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by JustPat
Actually, with the revenue available through Iraqi oil properly administered, the whole country can be turned to prosperity and it won't cost the US a penny.

Yes, if the oil revenues are administered properly, it will enable Iraqis to live a marginal existence, especially those who are involved in the state-run oil industry (and it will have to be state-run for the foreseeable future for the revenues to be distributed to build an economic and civil infrastructure).

On the other hand, those Iraqis who are not involved will still find it nearly impossible to succeed in the private sector. They will remain just about as poor as now, and will account for the vast majority of the population.

And keep in mind that in order to build up and train a sufficient government bureaucracy to distribute the oil funds for public infrastructure, a huge amount of American tax dollars will be needed. And, to produce a sizable middle class in Iraq for those not involved in the oil industry, will be an enormous undertaking that will require more than a decade.

While all of this is going on, I can guarantee you that the entire world will view us as having robbed Iraq of its oil (which is a lie, albeit a lie eagerly believed worldwide).

We might eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime in a very short amount of time, but bringing a primitive Arab country into the 21st Century might be biting off more than we can chew.

[L@mplighterM]

Iraq has plenty of black gold in the ground and there’s certainly a market for oil in the world.

Currently the US is largely dependent on Saudi oil and/or the oil that they control. If the Iraq oil fields starting supplying the world market with oil it would lessen the dependence of Saudi oil giving the US more leeway in how it deals with that country. America will be in a position to demand that the Saudis clean up Islamic fundamentalism or face the consequences.

In the past US foreign policy has always seemingly backfired resulting in problems for future administrations but of course its impossible to second guess how things would have been without US interference. Sunni and/or Shiite Muslims will never give us their undying love and admiration to the west that’s just a fact of life so I don’t see much difference which sect ends up running Iraq.

I visualize a post Hussein government with mostly Shiite Muslims. Kurds (Sunni Muslims as well) and Sunni Muslims (Arabs) will also make up part of the government.

In the long run I don’t believe that it’ll cost the US taxpayers a red cent to build up Iraq, on the contrary I see great short-term (5-10 years) benefits for Americans if they can trade goods for oil. If the US uses this time frame to develop an alternate energy source the end result will be a net gain to the US.

I would like to think that Iraq would become a spearhead for tackling the Hezbollah in Syria and other terrorist organizations throughout the area.

[chrisjohn316]

I think Iraq should be helped to become a democratic country.

[Bard Fan]

Thomas Friedman put it well in his column today

The Gridlock Gang by Thomas Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html)

What all this means is that when it comes to building democracy in Iraq, the Europeans are uninterested, the Americans are hypocritical and the Arabs are ambivalent. Therefore, undertaking a successful democratization project there, in a way that will stimulate positive reform throughout the region, will require a real revolution in thinking all around — among Americans, Arabs and Europeans. If done right, the Middle East will never be the same. If done wrong, the world will never be the same.

I watched Peres on an interview last night and he mentioned how technology has changed the world. If Iraq is succesfully reformed into a progressive state, other Arabs will see it on their TV and want to reform their own goverments. This would change the Middle East from it current sad state.

[Bard Fan]

In last week's collumn Friedman listed the arguments for it:

it's because if left alone he(Saddam) will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction.

Since one of the main justifications for going to war is to help the Iraqi people set up a progressive state, once the US and its coalition goes to war, the coalition has an obligation to try to assist in setting up a progressive state. Oppressed Muslims are attracted to radical Islam as a way out of their oppression, with a progessive Iraq state, the oppresed Muslims could strive for their own progressive state.

There is a huge population of young Muslims. Often in history when there is a huge young population it leads to a political revolution. I hope that this movement will be towards democracy rather than radical Islam.

[elke]

The committment to reconstruction of Iraq and dangers inherent in the process, are the best argument the anti-war movement has for their view, IMO. While it is indisputable that US is eminently capable of militarily defeating Saddam with the "Coalition of the Willing", it's what happens next that needs the support of other Western countries. Face it, none of the members of the Coalition, except for US and UK, have the wherewithal for the reconstruction period.

This goes beyond money, it involves a tremendous management task. I was kind of hoping that President Bush would use the Wednesday night speech to explain, at least in general terms, what it is that the Coalition intends to do once Saddam is gone.

This is really the subject that needs to be debated. This is what the Freedom of Speech was really designed to foster: a real, comprehensive discussion of the various aspects of major political and social decisions. Instead, what we are getting from the anti-war movement is a bunch of tired slogans, construction of cynical conspiracy theories, and a whole slew of rants irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by elke
This goes beyond money, it involves a tremendous management task. I was kind of hoping that President Bush would use the Wednesday night speech to explain, at least in general terms, what it is that the Coalition intends to do once Saddam is gone.

I wholeheartedly agree! There needs to be a "promise" of some sort by the pro-war coalition on how Iraq will be dealt with after a possible war. Personally I think there will be less anti-war protesters if the pro-war coalition can show how a war will benifit Iraq (apart from the end of Saddam arguement). If the US has serious long term plans for Iraq it should at least show them to the worlds gaze. The last thing the US needs is a sloppy takeover, where many civilians are killed and no proper reform of the government, and Saddams aftermath dictatorship still going strong by another Iraqi leader who is also against the Western world. The best thing the US could have is a quick invasion against the evil regime, and then a sudden effort of International aid to Iraqi civilians, plus a long term effort to stabilise the region and mould a new government.

[Mediocrates]

I think we should call the postcolonialists 'every nationality deserves its own country' bluff and dismember Iraq into a number of smaller tribal ethnic or religious states and hand over the economic development of the country to the Kuwaitis and the KSA.

It will probably take 20-40 billion dollars over the next decade just to get oil production back on track and what better people to do it then the Kingdoms that rely on us to keep their own people from cutting their heads off and putting them on poles. I think this would also create enough friction between Iran and Saud-raq-ait to break apart OPEC and possibly align new oil & gas cartels along the lines of Mexico, Russia, Angola, Venezuela, Norway vs. OPEC (minus Venezuela and minus Iraq as a distinct country).

Ultimately the long run goal must be to reduce our reliance on Arab-muslim state-OPEC oil by a small percentage each year and transfer that to other sources. Today the US gets most of its oil from itself, Canada, Mexico and Venzeula. We get about 25% of our total imports or about 11% of our total oil from the KSA and probably another 11% from the other M.E. OPEC states.

[Bard Fan]

I wholeheartedly agree! There needs to be a "promise" of some sort by the pro-war coalition on how Iraq will be dealt with after a possible war.

The problem with such promise is that the coalition doesn't want to make it appear they are deciding for the Iraqi people what is best for them. The decision must be made by the Iraqi people what type of goverment they want for themselves.

think we should call the postcolonialists 'every nationality deserves it's own country' bluff and dismember Iraq into a number of smaller tribal ethnic or religious states and hand over the economic development of the country to the Kuwaitis and the KSA.

I disagree. Countries like Turkey, Russia, and Spain have groups that want their independence wouldn't support this idea because it would give promise to own indepentent seeking groups and the coalition needs these countries support.

Also how would the oil wells be divided up into each smaller nation? I see constant friction among these smaller states claiming the oil belongs in their nation.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DC7F.htm

You've heard of national liberation, women's liberation and even animal liberation - but what about accidental liberation?


This is a theory doing the rounds among some liberal commentators feeling guilty about their support for war with Iraq. It holds that, however bloody, barbaric and American the war will be, at least it will have the godsent side-effect of liberating Iraqis from oppression.


According to Johann Hari of the UK Independent, 'This war is going to be terrible - but leaving Saddam in place would be even more terrible.... The difference is the deaths at the hands of Saddam will shore up Ba'athist national socialism, while deaths in war would at least clear the way for a free and democratic Iraq' (1).


Guardian loudmouth Julie Burchill puts it more bluntly: 'If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, [then] you're really weird….' (2)


The idea that the coming war will accidentally liberate Iraqis betrays a breathtaking naivety about the consequences of Western intervention. Outside interference in Iraq has already exacerbated local tensions, and military intervention can only further unravel the fragile Iraqi state. The internationalisation of Iraq's local conflicts threatens to divide Iraqis further and store up conflict for the future, rather than herald anything like a new era of freedom.


By turning Iraq into an international issue, America and Britain have paved the way for a carve-up. Local players like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia all want a piece of postwar Iraq, while the big powers - including the supposedly anti-war French and Germans - have their own plans for postwar occupation. And if you think such intervention will bring democracy to Iraq, then you're really weird.


On the ground, the divvying up of Iraq between different powers has already started. As part of its deal to allow US forces to use Turkish territory to launch attacks on Iraq, Turkey has been given the green light to double the number of its troops in northern Iraq from 6000 to 12,000 in recent weeks (3). Northern Iraq is territory that the United Nations designated as a 'safe haven' for Kurds following the first Gulf War in 1991, taking the area out of Baghdad's control and granting limited self-government to Kurdish groups.


Turkish forces are fortifying a 25-mile buffer zone between Turkey and northern Iraq - though according to Newsweek magazine, Turkish forces are keen to go even further into Iraqi territory. 'Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish "strategic positions" across a "security arc" as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq', reports Newsweek. 'That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad.' (4)


With America's blessing, Turkey is pursuing its own interests in northern Iraq

The Bush administration claims that it is allowing Turkish forces into northern Iraq for 'humanitarian reasons only' (5), to assist with the flood of refugees that the war in Iraq will no doubt create. In truth, with America's blessing, Turkey is pursuing nobody's interests but its own in northern Iraq.


Turkey is demanding free rein in northern Iraq. It wants to be in charge of 'supervising the armament and disarmament of Kurdish groups' and of 'restricting the movement' of Kurdish forces where necessary (6). Under the guise of a humanitarian effort, Turkey's intervention in northern Iraq is about keeping a check on Kurdish demands for independence, to ensure that such demands do not impact on Turkey's own volatile Kurdish population.


Since 1984, Turkey has been at war with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which fought for Kurdish independence within Turkish territory. Turkey refuses to recognise the 'ethnicity' of its Kurdish population and continues to ban the Kurdish language. Now, Turkey sees intervention in northern Iraq as the latest front in its war against the Kurds. As Turkish foreign minister Yasar Yakis said when asked about postwar Iraq: 'A Kurdistan should not be set up.' (7)


The opening up of northern Iraq to Turkish forces as part of the planned attack on Iraq lays the ground for renewed conflict between Turks and Kurds. According to Hoshyar Zebari, a senior official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which administers the western portion of northern Iraq: 'Any Turkish intervention under whatever pretext will lead to clashes.' (8) 'People in northern Iraqi Kurdistan are more scared of the Turkish military than of Saddam', says Nasreen Sideek, a KDP minister (9).


For Independent columnist Johann Hari and other Western commentators, northern Iraq epitomises the kind of democracy that ought to be extended throughout Iraq. According to Hari, '[U]nder US and British protection, a democracy with freedom of speech and protection of human rights has flourished for the past decade' in northern Iraq (10). Yet, according to a Kurdish newspaper poll taken on 22 February 2003, 83 percent of the residents of northern Iraq are opposed to 'any Turkish intrusion' (11). In what kind of 'flourishing democracy' can you have foreign intervention against the will of the majority?


Western intervention in Iraq has turned northern Iraq's local problems - muted conflict between different Kurdish groups, the existence of Islamic terrorist groups - into an international issue. Whatever stability existed in northern Iraq as a 'safe haven' is likely to be undermined by Turkey's US-backed intervention to pursue its own interests.


Elsewhere in northern Iraq, Iran has sent in 5000 Shia troops, complete with 'heavy equipment' (12), in an attempt to protect its borders with Iraq during and after the war. The Iraqi Shia troops were originally an Iraq-based Islamic opposition to Saddam's regime, though they have been granted safe haven and training by Iraq's longstanding enemy Iran for the past 20 years.


Iran claims to have sent the troops into northern Iraq as a defensive measure, to protect against a potential attack on Iran by the People's Mujahideen Organisation, an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq that allegedly receives support and funding from Saddam's regime (13). But Iran's real interests seem to be in fortifying its borders by pre-emptively crossing over into Iraqi territory, and staking its interest in any set-up in postwar Iraq.


America plans to take 'complete control of post-Saddam Iraq'

According to the Financial Times, 'Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up' (14). One expert on Iraqi/Iranian relations claims that Iran is pursuing 'nothing but an Iranian agenda', to ensure its future stability. Some Iranian officials are floating the possibility of extending their influence among Iraq's Shia Muslim population, by encouraging them to stand up to the Sunni Muslims that dominate Saddam's regime - a move that could only cause further fragmentation and division inside Iraq.


It might seem odd that Iran - one of America's 'axis of evil' states, remember - can send 5000 heavily armed troops into Iraq without incurring much international condemnation (though the Bush administration is apparently 'concerned'). Perhaps Tehran officials have been buoyed to intervene in Iraq by their meetings with UK prime minister Tony Blair earlier this year, who promised that Iran's interests would be 'taken into consideration' during and after war with Iraq.


With Turkish troops on one side of northern Iraq and Iranian-backed troops on the other, US officials are said to be ever-more concerned about 'the increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq', and the potential for instability that this brings about (15). But who was it, if not Western forces, that made northern Iraq into such free-for-all territory in the first place?


The north was taken out of Baghdad's control after the first Gulf War by Western forces. It was one of the UN 'safe havens' that was being demanded by many of those now opposed to military intervention. As a consequence, Iraq's sovereignty and borders were seriously undermined, making northern Iraq a less governed (and generally less governable) place than the rest of Iraq. It was the West's undermining of Iraqi state control over northern Iraq that made it such a borderless and intervention-friendly place.


As Muzaffer Baca, vice-president of a Turkish humanitarian relief organisation, argues: 'There [has been] no effective control of the central authorities or international institutions. Northern Iraq is a haven for drug and arms smugglers….The instability creates an atmosphere in which terror and terrorist organisations can flourish.' (16)

[Mediocrates]

Far from being an example for the rest of Iraq, northern Iraq shows the dangers of Western intervention, and how undermining a state's sovereignty heightens the potential for instability and conflict. Besides, the 'patchwork' of Turkish and Iranian-backed forces in northern Iraq that so concerns Bush and co appears to have come about as a result of at least American and British agreement, if not their full-blown support.


Perhaps in response to the potential for what one newspaper calls 'the permanent disintegration of Iraq', the Bush administration unveiled its latest plans for postwar Iraq in late February 2003. The White House plans a total occupation of Iraq following the war, to oversee the 'reconstruction of the country's shattered infrastructure' (the infrastructure that US forces will just have shattered?) (17).


According to one report: 'The White House will outline plans…for taking complete control of post-Saddam Iraq "for an indefinite period" and overseeing the reconstruction of the country. General Tommy Franks, the Texan commander of the allied invasion forces, will be named as interim governor until all weapons of mass destruction are found and disabled and wanted members of the regime tracked down and arrested.' (18)


There is something missing in the proposals for postwar Iraq - the Iraqis themselves

And what will happen once the military occupation has disarmed Iraq and destroyed any opposition to its presence? Then the reins will be handed over to an American civilian, or an 'American of stature' as one report puts it, who will, again, control Iraq for an 'indefinite period' (19).


The French and German alternative to America's occupation plans isn't much better. France and Germany may be heralded by the anti-war movement as forces for peace in the Iraqi crisis, but they too propose that Iraq be occupied - only by UN rather than American forces. In France and Germany's preferred option for Iraq, the UN Security Council would take control of Iraqi airspace and soil, and Iraq would effectively become a protectorate, like Kosovo. Liberation, accidental or otherwise, would be notable by its absence.


There is something missing in the American, British, French and German proposals for postwar Iraq - the Iraqis themselves. The people of Iraq may have a starring role in Bush and Blair's rhetoric, but in the plans for postwar Iraq they don't even get a look in. Bush and Blair talk up the need to 'free Iraqis' from 'Saddam's grip', but they push ahead with a plan that will divide Iraq up and put American generals in charge.


This is the 'free and democratic' Iraq we can expect following further Western intervention - an Iraq where Iraqis are more divided than ever; where local conflicts are internationalised and exacerbated; where neighbouring powers Turkey and Iran vie for territory and influence; and where the country is occupied by American or UN forces.


The liberals' idea of accidental liberation is a con. It depicts the people of Iraq as hapless saps who should only expect freedom as the by-product of a Western war. And it displays a wilful ignorance of the big power interests that are currently carving up and destabilising Iraq, even before the war has started. I prefer the idea of human liberation for the people of Iraq. And that is something that only the Iraqis themselves - free from outside interference - have a vested interest in fighting for.


Read on:

spiked-issue: War on Iraq

(1) The case for war: we must fight to end the Iraqis' suffering, Johann Hari, Independent, 15 February 2003

(2) Why we should go to war, Julie Burchill, Guardian, 1 February 2003

(3) Turkey weighs economic, political costs of a Gulf War, Ilene R Prusher, Christian Science Monitor, 10 January 2003

(4) Risking a civil war, Owen Matthews, Sami Kohen and John Barry, Newsweek, 24 February 2003

(5) US to station thousands of troops in self-rule area, Michael Howard, Guardian, 24 February 2003

(6) Kurds brace for Turks, Cameron W Barr, Christian Science Monitor, 24 February 2003

(7) Turkey, US rebound from stalemate over aid package, Ilene R Prusher, Christian Science Monitor, 24 February 2003

(8) Kurds brace for Turks, Cameron W Barr, Christian Science Monitor, 24 February 2003

(9) Kurds brace for Turks, Cameron W Barr, Christian Science Monitor, 24 February 2003

(10) The case for war: we must fight to end the Iraqis' suffering, Johann Hari, Independent, 15 February 2003

(11) Kurds brace for Turks, Cameron W Barr, Christian Science Monitor, 24 February 2003

(12) Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, 19 February 2003

(13) Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, 19 February 2003

(14) Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, 19 February 2003

(15) Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, 19 February 2003

(16) War would threaten Iraq's Kurds and Shias, Muzaffer Baca, AlertNet, 29 November 2002

(17) General Franks 'to run Iraq after war', Ian Bruce, Herald, 24 February 2003

(18) General Franks 'to run Iraq after war', Ian Bruce, Herald, 24 February 2003

(19) General Franks 'to run Iraq after war', Ian Bruce, Herald, 24 February 2003

[Mediocrates]

But here is the question that never gets adequately answered:


If what happens is destabilization then what has all this prior stability really bought us? That is, we hear claims that this can do nothing but incite more terrorism or drive the region further from us or a hundred other maybes about what might occur, but:

What kind of non-terrorism have we lived with thusfar?
What kind of regimes have we refused to deal with?
What has this so called stability bought us? Nothing really because it's not stability it's stalemate.

[elke]

But the "promise" does not have to be building a democracy, if that's not what the Iraqis want. The promise should be that they will have a chance to decide and that the Coalition will help them build whatever it is they decide to do - so long as it does not involve threat to their neighbors. The Iraqis should be busily building their country and economy after the war, improving their social and economic standards of living in whatever way they wish, - again, without threatening neighbors.

Ultimately, one election only needs to be held: the one in which Iraqis come up with what they want.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by elke
But the "promise" does not have to be building a democracy, if that's not what the Iraqis want. The promise should be that they will have a chance to decide and that the Coalition will help them build whatever it is they decide to do - so long as it does not involve threat to their neighbors. The Iraqis should be busily building their country and economy after the war, improving their social and economic standards of living in whatever way they wish, - again, without threatening neighbors.

Ultimately, one election only needs to be held: the one in which Iraqis come up with what they want.

The United States of America will stick around long enough to allow the Iraqi people to control their own future. The only form of government that fits this bill is a government of the people and for the people, otherwise known as democracy. A genuinely free democracy is quite different to the dominant understanding of democracy prevalent in the Arab world today. Such a free democracy has nothing to do with that view where the leaders are somehow imposed by the majority through some sort of popularity vote. An election is totally meaningless until the people actually understand what they are actually voting for, conducted in an open environment where everyone feels free to disagree. Those who believe that the Arab world can not sustain democracy are actually suggesting that Arabs are either not capable or not willing to run their own lives. That view should be seen as an insult the Arab people.

Democracy is totally misunderstood in the Arab world, believed to be just some popularity contest where the majority rules. This is how the Arab world deludes itself into believing that the Palestinians under the dictatorship of Arafat believe that Arafat has pursued Palestinian ‘self-determination’; when in reality he has only pursued ‘Arafat-determination’. Though small democratic experiments are moving forward in a couple tiny gulf states like Qatar, the only Arab population in the Middle East to actually enjoy democracy are the Palestinian Israeli’s (distinct from the Palestinians in the occupied territories suffering because of their ‘leaders’ engaged in an active war against Israel).

Democracy is NOT the rule of the majority, but the PROTECTION of the minorities to express their right of self-determination equally with the rights of the majority to their self-determination. The individual right to openly disagree, in a NON-VIOLENT/NON-INCITEMENT manner, is tantamount. Indeed, the process of liberating people from fear and persecution must occur before any society is capable of expressing democratic rights. Holding an election where non-violent opposition has been silenced is anything but an expression of democratic self-determination. Even Sadaam labels himself ‘President’ boasting 100% approval at an election!

The measure of a legitimate government is through its minority groups. Israel granting the Jewish refugees exiled from the Arab world full citizenship, while the Arab world has kept her Palestinian refugees in prison camps for over 50 years (save Jordan which acted with some humanity by absorbing her Palestinian refugees). Israel granting all non-violent Palestinians in her land citizenship with full equal rights under law, in contrast to Iraq which had destroyed Kurdish and Shiite cities, etc. etc.

[elke]

I agree with you, elreason4, fully - in general terms. My only point of contention is that it will take much time, energy, and other resources to successfully set up this form of government in Iraq: not because Arabs are incapable of understanding and living in a democracy, but rather because it is a relatively "high-maintenance" form of government, difficult to sustain without experience. It requires far more from each and every citizen than any other political structure developed to date.

No one is born with this innate understanding of what democracy is and what it means to be a citizen. The responsibility democracy places on individuals is very, very high. It requires deep respect for the law, a well-developed conscience, and a sense of justice on individual level - along with a myriad of other qualities. All these are common human attributes, meaning that they can be developed in any human being - but the key word here is developed.

What I am really trying to say here is that only the Iraqi people themselves can decide what level of democracy they are ready for. They should not be forced to do what others want them to do, whether or not it's "for their own good". It is my fervent hope that they will deem themselves ready for the true democratic government, which will - as you eloquently put it - protect the many minorities in their midst, rather than impose the tyranny of the majority on everyone. However, it must be their own choice - since otherwise the experiment will surely fail.

[LionOfLoyalty]

Creating whatever government they wish for...sounds like a democracy to me.

Originally posted by elke
But the "promise" does not have to be building a democracy, if that's not what the Iraqis want. The promise should be that they will have a chance to decide and that the Coalition will help them build whatever it is they decide to do - so long as it does not involve threat to their neighbors. The Iraqis should be busily building their country and economy after the war, improving their social and economic standards of living in whatever way they wish, - again, without threatening neighbors.

Ultimately, one election only needs to be held: the one in which Iraqis come up with what they want.

[elreason4]

elke-
Due to the present circumstances, the Iraqi people have forfeit their right to be the subject of some master, permanently ruled by others (ranging from dictatorship like Sadaam, royalty or any Western power). However, there is absolutely no point in holding an Iraqi election until the Iraqi people know what they are voting for. In this regard, they don’t have the ability to choose or reject democracy; because once they have the capacity to choose they will have turned into a democracy. The U.S. will have no choice but to stabilize the country while the people are introduced to freedom, pretty much the same as post WWII Japan. If Japan can do it, so can anyone else.

For the future stability of the region and the only way to win the war against terror, the U.S. has no choice but to begin to build a truly free Middle East. Since 9-11 the old social order is unsustanaible from the point of view of the U.S. Free people don’t fight each other. Of course, this is why the tyrannies in the Middle East are more fearful of the U.S. than Sadaam. The Saudi’s know perfectly well that the House of Saud has no legitimate basis to be absolute rulers. All the tyrants in the Middle East know their time is nearly up, when the people will govern themselves.

[richcrassus]

All i know is if the US dosent go on the Iran or Syria next it is proof its all about the oil, Syria and Iran are as likely to give Al Quida WMD's as Iraq.

[elke]

Originally posted by elreason4
elke-
Due to the present circumstances, the Iraqi people have forfeit their right to be the subject of some master, permanently ruled by others (ranging from dictatorship like Sadaam, royalty or any Western power). However, there is absolutely no point in holding an Iraqi election until the Iraqi people know what they are voting for. In this regard, they don’t have the ability to choose or reject democracy; because once they have the capacity to choose they will have turned into a democracy. The U.S. will have no choice but to stabilize the country while the people are introduced to freedom, pretty much the same as post WWII Japan. If Japan can do it, so can anyone else.

For the future stability of the region and the only way to win the war against terror, the U.S. has no choice but to begin to build a truly free Middle East. Since 9-11 the old social order is unsustanaible from the point of view of the U.S. Free people don’t fight each other. Of course, this is why the tyrannies in the Middle East are more fearful of the U.S. than Sadaam. The Saudi’s know perfectly well that the House of Saud has no legitimate basis to be absolute rulers. All the tyrants in the Middle East know their time is nearly up, when the people will govern themselves.

Agreed, absolutely.

I just hope that US is given the full chance at doing this. That's really what the question is: whether the world is ready to give the Iraqis a chance at true self-determination; and US - to facilitate it. The process will take a long time, and will require much support. My point is that at a minimum, Iraqis need to be able to cast a vote on what their future governmental structure should be like, and that's the promise that needs to be made to them - and to the world.

In addition, a plan of action has to be in place, at least in general terms, as to how this is to be accomplished. It is entirely possible that such a plan is in existence and is not being released because it will not "sound good" - i.e. will require a long-term occupation of Iraq militarily, to keep control of all the different fractions, Marshall Law, etc. I know there have been leaks to that effect; but it is difficult to know if the leaks are for real plans in place, or just babblings of disgruntled State Department employees.

[andak01]

-

[andak01]

-

[andak01]

Originally posted by andak01
Turkey is not really a democracy. The democratic process was stopped short there when it attempted (rather successfully) to vote in an Islamic government. And that is a really interesting question. How democratic is a government whose people if given the opportunity would vote it out of office?

[elke]

From what I understand, this is not a unique situation: there have been other countries that voted in something other than what we in the West would call a democracy, although I am not sure that I agree that that's what happened in Turkey - it's too early to tell.

IMO, the proof is in the pudding. One question is what will happen at the next elections, and whether there even will be next elections: i.e. can the population vote out the current government, if they determine that it's not giving them what they want. If yes - then the country is democratic; if not - then it isn't.

IMO, democracy is not a one-time thing, but rather a pattern of operation over a period of time. In addition to the above, it also has to do with how the opposition is treated, whether or not there is free press and freedom of speech - read, freedom to criticize the current government, - and what is the situation for the minorities. Without these elements, voting or not voting is irrelevant, since voting alone cannot assure that all voices are heard, or that all people are treated equally under the law.

Whether or not the original, Ancient Greek, concept of democracy is observed (namely, the rule of the majority expressed by voting); is no longer the only litmus test. Countries such as Iraq, Lybia, FSU, and others would have passed it, while being some of the most repressive regimes in history. The other elements must also be present, in order for the country to be considered "democratic".

[Mediocrates]

Turkey is a unique case in that its constitution specifically allows the army to oversee the parliamentary process. The army can step in and has when it believes that the constitutional underpinnings of the country are threatened. But and this is a large but, they don't take this responsibility casually. The army is not in the business of overturning the government. Moreover, the senior officer corps is made up of highly educated long term people and there is very little patronage or nepotism.

This is not to say it's perfect but the army does stand a role much like the Supreme Court does in the US.