Full Version: Democratizing Iraq
A lot has been said about the shape of the Post War Iraq. Right now it is being ruled by appointees, but clearly at some point there is going to have to be a transition to self-rule.
The US will be trying to set up a government in Iraq, and according to all noises coming from the White House, this will be a Democratic state.
Is this feasable or practical? This questions has two branches to it:
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Iraq is, in theory, the cradle of civilisation, much of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations lived where Iraq is now. In those 5000+ years until today, there has NEVER been a Democratic state in Iraq, nor is there any real tradition of Democracy in Arab or Islamic states. Given that, would a durable democratic state be feasable?
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
If the Iraqi people are given free vote, it is very likely that they will elect a religious leadership. Given the close ties of the people and Church with Iran, or saudi Arabia (depending on which segment you are talking about) it seems very unlikely that this new Islamic State would be friendly towards the US for very long at all. Assuming the US does not plan to leave troops there to ensure Lioyalty, would a democratic state in Iraq not just end up being anti-US?
What is the solution?
The US will be trying to set up a government in Iraq, and according to all noises coming from the White House, this will be a Democratic state.
Is this feasable or practical? This questions has two branches to it:
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Iraq is, in theory, the cradle of civilisation, much of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations lived where Iraq is now. In those 5000+ years until today, there has NEVER been a Democratic state in Iraq, nor is there any real tradition of Democracy in Arab or Islamic states. Given that, would a durable democratic state be feasable?
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
If the Iraqi people are given free vote, it is very likely that they will elect a religious leadership. Given the close ties of the people and Church with Iran, or saudi Arabia (depending on which segment you are talking about) it seems very unlikely that this new Islamic State would be friendly towards the US for very long at all. Assuming the US does not plan to leave troops there to ensure Lioyalty, would a democratic state in Iraq not just end up being anti-US?
What is the solution?
I'd say it was possible. I'd also say it was possible for my uncle to grow EDITED TO REMOVE NON-MEDICAL TERM FOR ANATOMY and become my aunt.
We are comparing our model of a democracy to what we think could exist in the middle east. I think that is completely unrealistic. First, we have a clear separation of church and state here. Do we think we could go into a Muslim country and tell them it's ok to be a Muslim, just keep it out of your government? Which leads to the second problem. Most Arab nations tolerate the violence of extremists in the name of Allah. Here in America, we do not tolerate the Timothy McVies of the world regardless of how we feel about their beleifs. We cherish human life above everything. Muslims cherish some Mulim paradise over their own lives.
Because Islam and the extremists that go along with it, I don't believe their country has room for a democracy.
We are comparing our model of a democracy to what we think could exist in the middle east. I think that is completely unrealistic. First, we have a clear separation of church and state here. Do we think we could go into a Muslim country and tell them it's ok to be a Muslim, just keep it out of your government? Which leads to the second problem. Most Arab nations tolerate the violence of extremists in the name of Allah. Here in America, we do not tolerate the Timothy McVies of the world regardless of how we feel about their beleifs. We cherish human life above everything. Muslims cherish some Mulim paradise over their own lives.
Because Islam and the extremists that go along with it, I don't believe their country has room for a democracy.
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Tradition has to start somewhere, so I'm not willing to rule the possibility out, but the culture needs time to adjust to the idea of Democracy before it even has a chance at succeeding. This would be best accomplished by creating a gradual transition to a Democratic government that takes place over an extended period of time...give a little here and give a little there so that the people can adjust slowly while working out a system in which Islam and Democracy can be complimentary.
The problem is that this takes time and money.
There is also the question of who should implement and oversee this gradual changeover. If the U.S. is being accused of imperialism now, just think how bad it would be over time both from within the U.S. and from without. There are already people who want to pull out of Iraq immediately.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
Yes, my feeling is that the US wants Iraq to have a real Democracy, but it doesn't want the Iraqi people out of inexperience to elect someone who will be another Khomenei. I can't blame the US for that.
Tradition has to start somewhere, so I'm not willing to rule the possibility out, but the culture needs time to adjust to the idea of Democracy before it even has a chance at succeeding. This would be best accomplished by creating a gradual transition to a Democratic government that takes place over an extended period of time...give a little here and give a little there so that the people can adjust slowly while working out a system in which Islam and Democracy can be complimentary.
The problem is that this takes time and money.
There is also the question of who should implement and oversee this gradual changeover. If the U.S. is being accused of imperialism now, just think how bad it would be over time both from within the U.S. and from without. There are already people who want to pull out of Iraq immediately.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
Yes, my feeling is that the US wants Iraq to have a real Democracy, but it doesn't want the Iraqi people out of inexperience to elect someone who will be another Khomenei. I can't blame the US for that.
QUOTE(Cyan @ Feb 10 2004, 05:06 PM)
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
Yes, my feeling is that the US wants Iraq to have a real Democracy, but it doesn't want the Iraqi people out of inexperience to elect someone who will be another Khomenei. I can't blame the US for that.
Just to clarify, I was not positing that the Iraqi people would elect another religious leader out of inexperience, but rather that they would elect a religious leader with open minds and eyes, because thet is the leader they want, and makes sense to them. The fact is, if a Shi'a religious leader runs in this 'election', they will win, and thus the new Government of Iraq will be religious and, following the sentiment of the people, be at LEAST moderatly (if not more) anti-US.
It seems to be a lose-lose situation to me...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Just to clarify, I was not positing that the Iraqi people would elect another religious leader out of inexperience, but rather that they would elect a religious leader with open minds and eyes, because thet is the leader they want, and makes sense to them.
Yes, but I'm suggesting that electing a religious leader, while it may be done with "open minds and open eyes" is also done out of inexperience and will more than likely go badly for the Iraqi people just as it has in Iran.
I remember watching FOX last February and Hannity doing his best to back Bush in the war on Iraq. He mentioned something to the effect that we’ll go in, get rid of Saddam and setup a democratic state. And similar words were echoed by the President in his press conference.
WOW, it’s that easy! How altruistic. It looks good on paper, just not the paper of history books.
You think that’s why Clinton or Bush The First didn’t want to ‘engage’ in Iraq? Bush I had more justification than Bush II for removing Saddam and he didn’t. Maybe they knew if you removed Saddam another vile dictator would pop up. And the only way to prevent that from happening would be to replace their form of government which is at best an exercise in futility.
As Vermillion points out, this area of the world has NEVER come close to a democratic state. For centuries they’ve been ruled by sects who forced their way into power. And here’s the key in my mind:
The US is perceived as an evil empire, bullies and thugs. Most of us know better and are fully aware of the compassion our government is capable of showing. But our own views don’t matter here.
In the minds of an Iraqi, why would they choose to emulate an evil empire? You’ll never convince them that our form of government is a better option. The best we could hope for is to get the right leaders in place while encouraging incremental changes. Too much too soon and it will certainly back fire.
One day we may learn ourselves that some view occupation far worse than oppression. And one step further, they may view our involvement in their new government as an attempt to create another puppet state in the Middle East.
Dangerous ground here, tread lightly.
WOW, it’s that easy! How altruistic. It looks good on paper, just not the paper of history books.
You think that’s why Clinton or Bush The First didn’t want to ‘engage’ in Iraq? Bush I had more justification than Bush II for removing Saddam and he didn’t. Maybe they knew if you removed Saddam another vile dictator would pop up. And the only way to prevent that from happening would be to replace their form of government which is at best an exercise in futility.
As Vermillion points out, this area of the world has NEVER come close to a democratic state. For centuries they’ve been ruled by sects who forced their way into power. And here’s the key in my mind:
The US is perceived as an evil empire, bullies and thugs. Most of us know better and are fully aware of the compassion our government is capable of showing. But our own views don’t matter here.
In the minds of an Iraqi, why would they choose to emulate an evil empire? You’ll never convince them that our form of government is a better option. The best we could hope for is to get the right leaders in place while encouraging incremental changes. Too much too soon and it will certainly back fire.
One day we may learn ourselves that some view occupation far worse than oppression. And one step further, they may view our involvement in their new government as an attempt to create another puppet state in the Middle East.
Dangerous ground here, tread lightly.
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
There was not a tradition of democracy in this country before the establishment of our constitution either. I agree that it will be a lengthy, and probably painful, process for the Iraqis to ever achieve a democracy like ours. I wonder if the ‘separation of church and state’ needs to be interpreted as strictly as it is in our country, or if there isn’t room for some compromise there. Are the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interpretations of the Koran so different from each other that there can’t be some common ground for its influence to remain in government policies? Despite what we refer to as a secular government, there still seems to be a Judeo-Christian influence in much of our politics. Granted, sometimes it causes conflicts, but our system seems to be strong enough to work with, or around, them. Also, like all the other conflicts we encounter, don’t they actually make a system stronger? Conflicts bring on debates, like this forum for instance, and the result of these debates is knowledge if minds remain open. Knowledge itself inevitably leads to change.
If this is possible, then the long history of the region could even be an asset in bringing about a change in government representation of the people, as opposed to a hindrance. Elected representatives could, for the first time, balance each other in decisions concerning those who elected them to office. Certainly, these elections would be influenced by the religious stands of the voters, but then so are ours. The challenge seems to be able to find a political system which would represent all Iraqis equally. The first lesson they will probably learn (the hard way) is “all politicians lie.” That should set them on the path for knowledge, and change.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
As opposed to a puppet government? I would say yes. The creation of Democracies in both post-war Germany and Japan, have shown that a government not controlled by the US can be a positive, not only for our country, but for the world at large. This country has enough on its plate without having to worry about Iraq. A real Democracy which would be able to take care of itself would be desirable.
There was not a tradition of democracy in this country before the establishment of our constitution either. I agree that it will be a lengthy, and probably painful, process for the Iraqis to ever achieve a democracy like ours. I wonder if the ‘separation of church and state’ needs to be interpreted as strictly as it is in our country, or if there isn’t room for some compromise there. Are the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interpretations of the Koran so different from each other that there can’t be some common ground for its influence to remain in government policies? Despite what we refer to as a secular government, there still seems to be a Judeo-Christian influence in much of our politics. Granted, sometimes it causes conflicts, but our system seems to be strong enough to work with, or around, them. Also, like all the other conflicts we encounter, don’t they actually make a system stronger? Conflicts bring on debates, like this forum for instance, and the result of these debates is knowledge if minds remain open. Knowledge itself inevitably leads to change.
If this is possible, then the long history of the region could even be an asset in bringing about a change in government representation of the people, as opposed to a hindrance. Elected representatives could, for the first time, balance each other in decisions concerning those who elected them to office. Certainly, these elections would be influenced by the religious stands of the voters, but then so are ours. The challenge seems to be able to find a political system which would represent all Iraqis equally. The first lesson they will probably learn (the hard way) is “all politicians lie.” That should set them on the path for knowledge, and change.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
As opposed to a puppet government? I would say yes. The creation of Democracies in both post-war Germany and Japan, have shown that a government not controlled by the US can be a positive, not only for our country, but for the world at large. This country has enough on its plate without having to worry about Iraq. A real Democracy which would be able to take care of itself would be desirable.
Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Well...It happened in Japan, after US occupation. I don't believe we have anywhere near the moral authority or will to do that in Iraq, or anything remotely equivalent. The transformation of Japan was slow. We broke up big estates and reallocated the land. We supervised and controlled education within the classrooms. Thousands of American lawyers, economists, engineers, and administrators spent years developing and executing reform plans.
John W. Dower, a history professor at M.I.T. and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the American occupation of Japan, compared the Japanese project with the democratization of Iraq.
Well...It happened in Japan, after US occupation. I don't believe we have anywhere near the moral authority or will to do that in Iraq, or anything remotely equivalent. The transformation of Japan was slow. We broke up big estates and reallocated the land. We supervised and controlled education within the classrooms. Thousands of American lawyers, economists, engineers, and administrators spent years developing and executing reform plans.
John W. Dower, a history professor at M.I.T. and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the American occupation of Japan, compared the Japanese project with the democratization of Iraq.
QUOTE
He explained that the difference between Japan and Iraq is great enough, but the difference between America in 1945 and 2003 is even greater. ''We do not have the moral legitimacy we had then, nor do we have the other thing that was present when we occupied Japan -- the vision of the American public that we would engage in serious and genuinely democratic nation-building and that we would do this in the context of an international order.'' Even Fouad Ajami, a strong believer in the war's potential for regional reform, told me: ''The country is depressed, psychologically and economically. There is no great calling toward planting our truth in Mesopotamia. The war will have an ideological claim, but tempered by the difficulty of Iraq, by the fact that we don't know this land.”
Vermillion
"What is the solution?"
Wait by the river long enough and hell will freeze over first.
Here is an interesting observation:
Now does that sound like fertile ground for democracy?
The only connection between Iraq and democracy is in Bush's mind.
"What is the solution?"
Wait by the river long enough and hell will freeze over first.
Here is an interesting observation:
QUOTE
Aljazeera
The growing inter-ethnic violence has not gone unnoticed by the US troops stationed in northern Iraq. "I don't doubt that the minute we pull out of here, there is going to be a full-on civil war," said specialist David Percy, a 23-year-old air force technician serving at the Kirkuk airbase.
"These guys all seem to hate each other, except the one thing they agree on - which is that American troops must go home. And if you're any of our guys, you'll find that that sentiment is unanimous".
The growing inter-ethnic violence has not gone unnoticed by the US troops stationed in northern Iraq. "I don't doubt that the minute we pull out of here, there is going to be a full-on civil war," said specialist David Percy, a 23-year-old air force technician serving at the Kirkuk airbase.
"These guys all seem to hate each other, except the one thing they agree on - which is that American troops must go home. And if you're any of our guys, you'll find that that sentiment is unanimous".
Now does that sound like fertile ground for democracy?
The only connection between Iraq and democracy is in Bush's mind.
Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Well, I don't want to regurgitate too much of what has been said, but with the examples given of post-war Germany and Japan and our own beginings, democracy in Iraq seems plausible.
The issue of what role Islam will play in this new government will be vital. Vital in the sense that if the government is controled (overtrly or covertly) by fundamentalists, then that might pose a problem. We don't want to hatch a breeding ground for more Al-Qaeda terrorists. But moderates are the key. Acquire a religious moderate as a leader and I imagine (with our support of said leader) Iraq could grow to be an example of Midlle Eastern democracy.
And remember, Iran also, is in a fight for it's political freedom. The common folk of Iran are wanting more freedom and more education than ever before and they are, in a way, revolting against the religious right. Hundreds of Iranian politicians boycotted a vote in parliment due to the actions of a religious hard-liner ran oversight group who decided that over 2,000 potential lawmakers were unfit to run in an election.
So with the political revolt in Iran and the chance to build a new democracy in Iraq, it would be prudent to stick around and make sure that democracy has a chance to flourish. And even if they elect somone who is moderately anti-American, well then they have some European countries to look up to.
Well, I don't want to regurgitate too much of what has been said, but with the examples given of post-war Germany and Japan and our own beginings, democracy in Iraq seems plausible.
The issue of what role Islam will play in this new government will be vital. Vital in the sense that if the government is controled (overtrly or covertly) by fundamentalists, then that might pose a problem. We don't want to hatch a breeding ground for more Al-Qaeda terrorists. But moderates are the key. Acquire a religious moderate as a leader and I imagine (with our support of said leader) Iraq could grow to be an example of Midlle Eastern democracy.
And remember, Iran also, is in a fight for it's political freedom. The common folk of Iran are wanting more freedom and more education than ever before and they are, in a way, revolting against the religious right. Hundreds of Iranian politicians boycotted a vote in parliment due to the actions of a religious hard-liner ran oversight group who decided that over 2,000 potential lawmakers were unfit to run in an election.
So with the political revolt in Iran and the chance to build a new democracy in Iraq, it would be prudent to stick around and make sure that democracy has a chance to flourish. And even if they elect somone who is moderately anti-American, well then they have some European countries to look up to.
I am a little less optimistic.
The US and Iraq have so little in common. US ideals have nothing to do with what Iraqis want, which is right now for the most part the US out and self rule, something the US is not going to allow to happen anytime soon. We shall be lucky if we avoid civil war or total rebellion.
Oh yes, I have heard, it was not about oil...of course it wasnt!
So, as benevolent as we are, waging war simply because Saddam was evil, we will allow Iraq total self rule, a real democracy...and not have any US control of any sorts. Bullcrap! That means we have NO say in what happens with all those oil fields after waging a multi-billion dollar war. Who is kidding who? Of course, 'naive ' is a french word.
The US is NOT going to give general open elections to Iraq to choose their leaders and risk anti-US Islamic fundamentalism, the bigger threat. They are going to make damn sure anyone who leads Iraq is in the US pocket. There is nothing of international or interior importance going to be in any way democratic about Iraq in the near future.
The US govenment is not a humanitarian organization. We wage wars for economic and power positions, the reason all wars are waged and this one is not an acception. Noone in power, in this country and many others, is letting control of Iraqi oil fields escape their field of vision for one second. Iraq has no chance of true self rule. A pretend, psuedo-democracy maybe, just for appearances sake.
The US and Iraq have so little in common. US ideals have nothing to do with what Iraqis want, which is right now for the most part the US out and self rule, something the US is not going to allow to happen anytime soon. We shall be lucky if we avoid civil war or total rebellion.
Oh yes, I have heard, it was not about oil...of course it wasnt!
So, as benevolent as we are, waging war simply because Saddam was evil, we will allow Iraq total self rule, a real democracy...and not have any US control of any sorts. Bullcrap! That means we have NO say in what happens with all those oil fields after waging a multi-billion dollar war. Who is kidding who? Of course, 'naive ' is a french word.
The US is NOT going to give general open elections to Iraq to choose their leaders and risk anti-US Islamic fundamentalism, the bigger threat. They are going to make damn sure anyone who leads Iraq is in the US pocket. There is nothing of international or interior importance going to be in any way democratic about Iraq in the near future.
The US govenment is not a humanitarian organization. We wage wars for economic and power positions, the reason all wars are waged and this one is not an acception. Noone in power, in this country and many others, is letting control of Iraqi oil fields escape their field of vision for one second. Iraq has no chance of true self rule. A pretend, psuedo-democracy maybe, just for appearances sake.
QUOTE
So, as benevolent as we are, waging war simply because Saddam was evil, we will allow Iraq total self rule, a real democracy...and not have any US control of any sorts. Bullcrap! That means we have NO say in what happens with all those oil fields after waging a multi-billion dollar war. Who is kidding who? Of course, 'naive ' is a french word.
The US is NOT going to give general open elections to Iraq to choose their leaders and risk anti-US Islamic fundamentalism, the bigger threat. They are going to make damn sure anyone who leads Iraq is in the US pocket. There is nothing of international or interior importance going to be in any way democratic about Iraq in the near future.
The US govenment is not a humanitarian organization. We wage wars for economic and power positions, the reason all wars are waged and this one is not an acception. Noone in power, in this country and many others, is letting control of Iraqi oil fields escape their field of vision for one second. Iraq has no chance of true self rule. A pretend, psuedo-democracy maybe, just for appearances sake.
The US is NOT going to give general open elections to Iraq to choose their leaders and risk anti-US Islamic fundamentalism, the bigger threat. They are going to make damn sure anyone who leads Iraq is in the US pocket. There is nothing of international or interior importance going to be in any way democratic about Iraq in the near future.
The US govenment is not a humanitarian organization. We wage wars for economic and power positions, the reason all wars are waged and this one is not an acception. Noone in power, in this country and many others, is letting control of Iraqi oil fields escape their field of vision for one second. Iraq has no chance of true self rule. A pretend, psuedo-democracy maybe, just for appearances sake.
So since the UN has come in to try and organize direct elections by the end of June how does that fit into the US's "evil" scheme as you see it? Why would they even think about allowing the UN to organize these elections if they wanted to create a "puppet" government?? Your negative analysis holds no water. If however the US prohibited the UN from comming in then maybe you could claim we were going to "fix" the elections. That unfortunatly (for you and your negative opinions) is not the fact.
QUOTE(Venom @ Feb 11 2004, 12:15 PM)
So since the UN has come in to try and organize direct elections by the end of June how does that fit into the US's "evil" scheme as you see it? Why would they even think about allowing the UN to organize these elections if they wanted to create a "puppet" government?? Your negative analysis holds no water. If however the US prohibited the UN from comming in then maybe you could claim we were going to "fix" the elections. That unfortunatly (for you and your negative opinions) is not the fact.
Actually, your posting is also not based on fact.
UN election team arrives in Iraq
QUOTE
A team of UN election experts arrived in Iraq on Saturday to gauge the country's ability to hold fair elections, seeking to resolve an impasse between the U.S. and Shiite leaders over the process of restoring sovereignty.
The country's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has demanded direct elections for Iraq's new legislature. But U.S. officials believe the lack of security and general disarray make a fair vote impossible before the handover of power scheduled for no later than July 1.
The country's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has demanded direct elections for Iraq's new legislature. But U.S. officials believe the lack of security and general disarray make a fair vote impossible before the handover of power scheduled for no later than July 1.
The UN is not organizing elections. Just guaging the climate for holding them. The Shiite leader wants them, we don't think it's feasible. We are probably more right at this time.
Firstly: Comparaisons with Post war Germany are a bit silly, comparasons with the establishment of the US are absurd.
Germany had a rich tradition of democracy, they had the institutions and knowledge that had only been interrupted for 13 years.
The US when established was not just beaten in a war, nor was it having a government imposed upon it. Further it had the tradition of the British parlimentary system, a fledgling democracy in action.
Iraq has had civilisation in one form or another for around 5500 years, and not once has there been a democratic state there. There is no understanding or expectation of democracy, no structures or infrastructure to maintain such a state, and at the moment there seems to be little will to form a functional democracy. Should the US hold a true election right now, the elected leader would almost certainly be Ali al-Sistani, a Shi'ite cleric who is generally anti-US and would rule the country as a theocracy, backed by the 65+% of Iraqis who are Shi'ite. It is unlikely that full democracy would survive his rule, and it seems unlikely that the general population would even object.
The US is rying to put a round peg in a square hole. The only feasable option is to follow the example of post-war Japan, but they only had their first fully sovereign elections after 8 years of occupation. Given the current rate of attrition of 43 US deaths per month, is the Us willing to suffer another 4200 servicemen dead by waiting that long?
Holding snap elections as soon as possible (in theory by July 1) will simply ensure that the mood of the day, that is an anti-US self-government rule, will take over the cuntry. The new government will be backed by either Iran or Saudi Arabia, will rejoin OPEC, and be another middle eastern ststae who does not like the US.
Germany had a rich tradition of democracy, they had the institutions and knowledge that had only been interrupted for 13 years.
The US when established was not just beaten in a war, nor was it having a government imposed upon it. Further it had the tradition of the British parlimentary system, a fledgling democracy in action.
Iraq has had civilisation in one form or another for around 5500 years, and not once has there been a democratic state there. There is no understanding or expectation of democracy, no structures or infrastructure to maintain such a state, and at the moment there seems to be little will to form a functional democracy. Should the US hold a true election right now, the elected leader would almost certainly be Ali al-Sistani, a Shi'ite cleric who is generally anti-US and would rule the country as a theocracy, backed by the 65+% of Iraqis who are Shi'ite. It is unlikely that full democracy would survive his rule, and it seems unlikely that the general population would even object.
The US is rying to put a round peg in a square hole. The only feasable option is to follow the example of post-war Japan, but they only had their first fully sovereign elections after 8 years of occupation. Given the current rate of attrition of 43 US deaths per month, is the Us willing to suffer another 4200 servicemen dead by waiting that long?
Holding snap elections as soon as possible (in theory by July 1) will simply ensure that the mood of the day, that is an anti-US self-government rule, will take over the cuntry. The new government will be backed by either Iran or Saudi Arabia, will rejoin OPEC, and be another middle eastern ststae who does not like the US.
Just out of curiousity, what's the record in terms of how long a democracy has survived?
We have all of our 225 years of democracy "teaching" a 6000 year old culture how to govern themselves. Isn't it pretty presumptuous to assume our government works better than theirs?
We have all of our 225 years of democracy "teaching" a 6000 year old culture how to govern themselves. Isn't it pretty presumptuous to assume our government works better than theirs?
Vermillion, I am curious if you think the US is going to allow that to happen. Wont it bring up alot of questions over whether the war was truly justified?
So, America went to war to oust Saddam in order to get an anti-Us fundamentalist running the country? What progress? and what a huge loss for us, the ideals the country stands for yadda yadda.
It would also make the ousting of Saddam the one and only reason for invading Iraq, and for all those soldiers dying and the fact that they screwed up the invasion will become all too obvious.
I dont believe this scenario, nor a fundamentalist government will be tolerated by the administration.
So, America went to war to oust Saddam in order to get an anti-Us fundamentalist running the country? What progress? and what a huge loss for us, the ideals the country stands for yadda yadda.
It would also make the ousting of Saddam the one and only reason for invading Iraq, and for all those soldiers dying and the fact that they screwed up the invasion will become all too obvious.
I dont believe this scenario, nor a fundamentalist government will be tolerated by the administration.
Dayton, I hope that you're not suggesting that the former regime of Saddam Hussein was in any way better than the future of the new Iraqi government. Now, by no means am I saying it is better than totl anarchy, but I think it would be safe to say that (with or without our help) Iraqis would choose to have a free of Saddam and his brand of democracy or better yet, lack thereof. To suggest otherwise is outright foolish.
Now it might seem presumtious that we would 'teach' the Iraqis about democracy. Iraq has played a major part in the rich history that region has, but it was only until the overthrow of King Faisal in 1958 was there anything resembling a democracy. From the emergence of the Summerians up through the time of the Asyrians, the Caliphates and finally the Ottoman Empire which lasted until the early decades of the last century, it was absolute power. And from the time of the overthrow of King Faisal until Saddam established himself as president in 1979, there was nothing but chaos. A period of coups, coup attempts and civil unrest. There wasn't ever really a democracy during that time. Just an unstable chain of administrations undergoing one power struggle after another. Then Saddam takes power in 1979 and eliminates any possibility of any challenge to his power. From then until this last April, Saddam's Iraq was an Iraq where you could not tell those in the government from brigands and thugs, shrouded under the guise of a democracy.
So do I think it's presumtious that we're trying to instill our version of demoracy in a nation and it's people who have never tasted it? No. I think it's presumtious to assume that Iraqi's do not want to live in a place where they can have a say in what happens to them and their country. I think it's presumtious to think that the youth of Iraq will follow the same path as those who have ran the country for the last hundred years. Democracy needs to be given a chance in Iraq. Whatever the Iraqi people choose to do after that is up to them.
Now it might seem presumtious that we would 'teach' the Iraqis about democracy. Iraq has played a major part in the rich history that region has, but it was only until the overthrow of King Faisal in 1958 was there anything resembling a democracy. From the emergence of the Summerians up through the time of the Asyrians, the Caliphates and finally the Ottoman Empire which lasted until the early decades of the last century, it was absolute power. And from the time of the overthrow of King Faisal until Saddam established himself as president in 1979, there was nothing but chaos. A period of coups, coup attempts and civil unrest. There wasn't ever really a democracy during that time. Just an unstable chain of administrations undergoing one power struggle after another. Then Saddam takes power in 1979 and eliminates any possibility of any challenge to his power. From then until this last April, Saddam's Iraq was an Iraq where you could not tell those in the government from brigands and thugs, shrouded under the guise of a democracy.
So do I think it's presumtious that we're trying to instill our version of demoracy in a nation and it's people who have never tasted it? No. I think it's presumtious to assume that Iraqi's do not want to live in a place where they can have a say in what happens to them and their country. I think it's presumtious to think that the youth of Iraq will follow the same path as those who have ran the country for the last hundred years. Democracy needs to be given a chance in Iraq. Whatever the Iraqi people choose to do after that is up to them.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Feb 11 2004, 06:37 PM)
So, America went to war to oust Saddam in order to get an anti-Us fundamentalist running the country? What progress? and what a huge loss for us, the ideals the country stands for yadda yadda.
It would also make the ousting of Saddam the one and only reason for invading Iraq, and for all those soldiers dying and the fact that they screwed up the invasion will become all too obvious.
It would also make the ousting of Saddam the one and only reason for invading Iraq, and for all those soldiers dying and the fact that they screwed up the invasion will become all too obvious.
Most of the arguments about the inevitable failure of a democratic Iraq are empty speculation. The fact that no democratic government has arisen there has more to do with unique historical circumstances than anything ingrained in the national character of the people...
As for the idea of fundamentalist taking hold through elections, no reason to believe that's likely. The most popular clerics are moderates and they may not be elected in any case (doubt they'll run really).
QUOTE
One reservation cited by opponents of quick elections is the fear that religious extremists would emerge victorious. But in many of the elections in Dhi Qar, Bradley said, teachers, doctors, lawyers and others have won. In the town of Rifai, professionals won seven of 10 races. In Batha, only two representatives of Islamic parties won seats on the 10-member council.
In the elections this past week, though, there were signs that the parties were beginning to mobilize. In Chebayish, members of the two strongest Islamic parties -- the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party -- passed out lists of candidates. Some were handwritten, others typed. Many voters brought the lists inside and obediently marked off the choices.
In the elections this past week, though, there were signs that the parties were beginning to mobilize. In Chebayish, members of the two strongest Islamic parties -- the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party -- passed out lists of candidates. Some were handwritten, others typed. Many voters brought the lists inside and obediently marked off the choices.
In Iraqi Towns, Electoral Experiment Finds Some Success
So it's a bit of a toss-up though even SCIRI is a rather moderate party, they won't be America over-night but they will certainly be a functioning democracy...
With the definition of democracy with respect to its meaning and execution in the United States being as fickle as it is, I think that it would be most humorous to think that the U.S. wants to try to implement a succesful democratic system in IRAQ.
For the moment, I will ignore the fact that the reason for attacking Iraq and "liberating" its people has never been justified. These people have their own way of life and the greatest mistake that American policy makers are making is assuming that they can force feed American culture and goverment systems into a culture which is not built like it is.
For the most part, I think this one of the most non-sensical things I've seen in years. The U.S. is spending over 900 million to fund the liberation of people thousands of miles away when the U.S. itself needs those funds to fix education systems, nurture job growth and increase security throughout its transportation sector.
For the moment, I will ignore the fact that the reason for attacking Iraq and "liberating" its people has never been justified. These people have their own way of life and the greatest mistake that American policy makers are making is assuming that they can force feed American culture and goverment systems into a culture which is not built like it is.
For the most part, I think this one of the most non-sensical things I've seen in years. The U.S. is spending over 900 million to fund the liberation of people thousands of miles away when the U.S. itself needs those funds to fix education systems, nurture job growth and increase security throughout its transportation sector.
QUOTE(Ezicaya @ Feb 24 2004, 05:11 PM)
These people have their own way of life and the greatest mistake that American policy makers are making is assuming that they can force feed American culture and goverment systems into a culture which is not built like it is.
We aren't gonna "force feed" our culture on them. If they want it , they can have it. That would be one of the advantages of democracy. China has our cutlure in that country and America didn't "force" it down it's throat. Capitalism did that.
As for the government system, what other type of system would ytou prefer they have? An Islamic Theocratic regime like Iran....making our efforts futile?
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 17 2004, 01:36 PM)
Most of the arguments about the inevitable failure of a democratic Iraq are empty speculation. The fact that no democratic government has arisen there has more to do with unique historical circumstances than anything ingrained in the national character of the people...
Seems that the facts on the ground are proving you wrong here, turnea.
General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - About one in every 10 members of Iraq (news - web sites)'s security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday.
In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.
"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.
"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
They want a strong leader to follow and they aren't willing to fight for their own country. Sounds like democracy is just the ticket for them!
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 21 2004, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 17 2004, 01:36 PM)
Most of the arguments about the inevitable failure of a democratic Iraq are empty speculation. The fact that no democratic government has arisen there has more to do with unique historical circumstances than anything ingrained in the national character of the people...
Seems that the facts on the ground are proving you wrong here, turnea.
General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - About one in every 10 members of Iraq (news - web sites)'s security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday.
In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.
"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.
"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
They want a strong leader to follow and they aren't willing to fight for their own country. Sounds like democracy is just the ticket for them!
Come now amf surely you don't really believe the quote you posted actually supports that line of argument. What you are engaged in is some viscious spin... let's examine what was actually said.
QUOTE
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
Does some "Iraqi hierarchy" mean dictatorship?
Could it possibly mean that they want an Iraqi government, you know the soveriegnty that is to given handed over on June 30th?
Iraqis want democracy, sucessive polls and any reporter on the ground with a grain of honesty have said so. The polls I listed deal with the subject in detail.
One general's opinion on the Iraqi police's need for Iraqi sovereignty doesn't come anywhere near proving me wrong.
Iraqis should fight harder, but they will win against the terrorists in any case. 40% of the police being scared off is a problem. If they are so afraid they shouldn't be police officers. With Iraq's recovering economy, those not cut out for the line of work and make way for the qualified and trained...
Democracy in Iraq is still highly probable...
QUOTE(turnea @ Apr 21 2004, 09:49 PM)
Come now amf surely you don't really believe the quote you posted actually supports that line of argument. What you are engaged in is some viscious spin... let's examine what was actually said.
Does some "Iraqi hierarchy" mean dictatorship?
Could it possibly mean that they want an Iraqi government, you know the soveriegnty that is to given handed over on June 30th?
Iraqis want democracy, sucessive polls and any reporter on the ground with a grain of honesty have said so. The polls I listed deal with the subject in detail.
...
Democracy in Iraq is still highly probable...
QUOTE
The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.
Does some "Iraqi hierarchy" mean dictatorship?
Could it possibly mean that they want an Iraqi government, you know the soveriegnty that is to given handed over on June 30th?
Iraqis want democracy, sucessive polls and any reporter on the ground with a grain of honesty have said so. The polls I listed deal with the subject in detail.
...
Democracy in Iraq is still highly probable...
This so-called "soveriegnity" is being handed on June 30 to a bunch of politicians hand-picked by the USA. This is democracy?
The governing council is supposed to be somewhat in charge now. No one pays them much mind. Chalabi -- the one who sold the USA on the bill of goods called "WMD" -- controls the finances of the governing council and has his own militia/thugs. This is democracy?
40% of the forces we've trained have bailed or turned against us. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we need 20 people on the ground to keep the peace for every 1000 Iraqis. We're nowhere near that number.
Russians gave up democracy in the 1910's because Lenin promised them peace and food. And he only had a few thousand rabid followers as well. That's all it takes to take power: a few thousand zealots and a promise of better things to come.
Polls mean nothing. That's just the opinions of "the masses", not of people willing to fight and die for the concept of democracy. That's what democracy demands. Iraqis don't have it in them. They are tribal. They will follow their tribal leaders and fight for what those leaders tell them to fight for. That's the way they've been raised; that's what they do. It'll take several generations for them to be otherwise.
Sustainable democracy won't happen in Iraq in the next 20 years. No matter what you think those polls mean.
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 21 2004, 09:00 PM)
This so-called "soveriegnity" is being handed on June 30 to a bunch of politicians hand-picked by the USA. This is democracy?
..and that particular fallacious argument is know as a strawman.
I never said the June 30th date was the deadline to democracy, no one has
I merely point out that it was likely what Maj. General Dempsey was referring to is the quote you posted.
QUOTE(amf)
Russians gave up democracy in the 1910's because Lenin promised them peace and food. And he only had a few thousand rabid followers as well. That's all it takes to take power: a few thousand zealots and a promise of better things to come.
History-lite, eh?
These kinds of over-simplification are rampant in Iraq threads unfortunately...
Russia's state pre-Bolshevik rule was disastrous. In contrast, Iraqis say there lives are going well and are tremendously optimistic. You see, they already have this promise of better things to come...
Heck, by your argument, that's makes democracy a certainty, eh?
US makes promises of better times to come.
Iraqis believe better times are coming.
Grab a few Iraqi officers and politicians (remember 60% are still on the job, that's a few thousand, count the Kurds and make that million
) Presto! Democracy takes hold.
I think both arguments are gross oversimplifications.
QUOTE(amf)
Polls mean nothing. That's just the opinions of "the masses", not of people willing to fight and die for the concept of democracy. That's what democracy demands. Iraqis don't have it in them. They are tribal. They will follow their tribal leaders and fight for what those leaders tell them to fight for. That's the way they've been raised; that's what they do. It'll take several generations for them to be otherwise.
Harsh... Now Iraqis are a people devoid of individualism?
Alright, if that is your theory, prove it...
Already Iraqis of every type are fighting for freedom.
Or do you not read the stories of the struggle of women's groups?
What about the fact that about 60% of Iraqis say they can't name a single national leader (not simply referring to those on the council) they trust?
They fact that Iraqis by and large express no trust in political parties?
That Iraqis feel 2-to-1 that Iraqi democracy is more important that religious ideals?
That only .8% feel regional leaders should guide Iraq's priorities?
I could go on at length, but I think it is abundantly clear that, by and large, Iraqis are not lead sheep.
Any evidence to back up your assertion that they are?
QUOTE(Artemise @ Feb 12 2004, 12:37 AM)
Vermillion, I am curious if you think the US is going to allow that to happen. Wont it bring up alot of questions over whether the war was truly justified?
So, America went to war to oust Saddam in order to get an anti-Us fundamentalist running the country? What progress? and what a huge loss for us, the ideals the country stands for yadda yadda.
So, America went to war to oust Saddam in order to get an anti-Us fundamentalist running the country? What progress? and what a huge loss for us, the ideals the country stands for yadda yadda.
My question is, what choice does the US have?
If they hold free elections, then they have to deal with the very likely possibility that the Iraqi people will elect somebody the US does not like. Turnea made the comical point that its 'unlikely the clerics will run, and the most popular clerics are moderates'.
The reality is, several Iraqi religious leaders are already clamouring for their places in any upcoming election, and they are not terribly moderate. The Middle East does not have a huge number of (by Us standards) moderate clerics, and those that do exists are still pretty generally anti-US.
So the US either sets up free democratic elections, or they set up a puppet state. In either case the likely outcome is not promising. A puppet state would reduce the US to the moral state of the old USSR, conquering smaller powers and setting up friendly governments regardless of the wishes of the populace. I don't think that is likely, even Bush is not that stupid.
Free elections mean the Iraq people get to make up their own minds. Regardless of who it is, it is pretty clear they will elect someone religious and nationalistic. That combination does not bode well for the US. The new leader's first priority will be to re-establish relations with its neighbours and forge links across the Middle east. Depending of if the leader is Shi'a or Sunni, they will ally either with Iran (disaster) or with Saudi. Saudi and Iraq together will control over half of the world,s oil, and popular sentiment in both countries is VERY anti-US.
So tell me, whats the best case here? Do even the far right wingers here really think the people of Iraq, if given free choice, will choose some moderate, secular pro-western leader? Face reality, there is a reason that the US has been known as the Great satan throughout the entire Middle East for 30 years, they are just not popular due to their blind alleigance to Israel and their dedication to meddling in the internal affairs of Middle eastern states.
The new iraq government will not be rabidly or violently anti-US, these people are not stupid, but it xcannot help but be generally anti-US.
Then what has the US accomplished? In 10 years if things are better off now then they were under Hussein, then we can talk. But to blindly assert that they will be, given the current chaos and the history of the region (and the fact that Bush refused to allow development of a post-war plan for Iraq) is asinine.
The real answer is, I don't know if the future Iraq will be better of than under Hussein, neither do you and neither does Bush.
QUOTE(turnea)
QUOTE(amf)
Russians gave up democracy in the 1910's because Lenin promised them peace and food. And he only had a few thousand rabid followers as well. That's all it takes to take power: a few thousand zealots and a promise of better things to come.
History-lite, eh?
These kinds of over-simplification are rampant in Iraq threads unfortunately...
Russia's state pre-Bolshevik rule was disastrous. In contrast, Iraqis say there lives are going well and are tremendously optimistic. You see, they already have this promise of better things to come...
Actually, only SOME are optimistic, even by your own polls. And that was before the latest battles. SOME are NOT optimistic. And some are downright antagonistic toward anything instituted by Americans.
As for Russia, not such an over-simplification. They had hundreds of years of being led autocratically, followed by four years trying to institute democracy (helped by us, by the way). When things got dicey with WWI, the people decided that democracy wasn't what they wanted; what they wanted was peace and food. And Lenin -- one of their own -- offered that to them. And then he killed anyone who got in his way to claiming total power. Same as Saddam did. And the people fell in line with that, because that's what they were more used to.
QUOTE(turnea)
US makes promises of better times to come.
Iraqis are nationalistic enough not to care if we promise them the moon. What we want for them doesn't matter as much as what they are willing to fight to acheive.
QUOTE(turnea)
QUOTE(amf)
Polls mean nothing. That's just the opinions of "the masses", not of people willing to fight and die for the concept of democracy. That's what democracy demands. Iraqis don't have it in them. They are tribal. They will follow their tribal leaders and fight for what those leaders tell them to fight for. That's the way they've been raised; that's what they do. It'll take several generations for them to be otherwise.
Harsh... Now Iraqis are a people devoid of individualism?
I could go on at length, but I think it is abundantly clear that, by and large, Iraqis are not lead sheep.
Any evidence to back up your assertion that they are?
I don't have to prove it. Iraqis will do it for us.
Look, it took us individualistic Americans 150 years from the time we landed on the shores of New England before we could want democracy and self-rule bad enough to fight for it. And we had to wage battle with Britain for several years before we could do that. Funny thing is that if we hadn't waited all those generations to form a national identity... well, given the attitudes of the first settlers, we would have been a theocracy fighting amongst ourselves.
Just like you can't hand a new BMW to a teenager, you can't hand freedom to someone on a silver platter and expect them to take care of it. Freedom isn't something you say you want in a poll. It's something you fight for.
Speaking of which, who will they fight for it? Right now, it's mostly us.
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 22 2004, 03:40 PM)
As for Russia, not such an over-simplification. They had hundreds of years of being led autocratically, followed by four years trying to institute democracy (helped by us, by the way). When things got dicey with WWI, the people decided that democracy wasn't what they wanted; what they wanted was peace and food.
I do not want to take this thread too far of course, so I shall deal with this point quickly... I am not sure what you are talking about here, but there was most certainly no attempt at democracy in Tsarist Russia, or anything like it. The Tsar introduced the Duma system following the 1905 revolts, but even in theory that in no way curtailed the ultimite power of the tsar and in practice it was uniformly ignored by all.
Russia was an autocratic monarchy until the Tsar abdicated in Feb. 1917. A series of provisional governments, first headed by Lvov, then by Kerensky hold 'power' such as it is for about 7 months until the Soviets overthrow it in October 1917.
The provisional government can hardly be called 'democratic' as it never had any opportunity to rule at all, and certainly never held a vote of any kind involving the people. A lot of romanticism has been made about the Kerensky government because of its promises and high sounding goals, but the Soviets also had promises and high sounding goals, and they did not live up to them...
Either way, the provisional governments lasted 4 and 3 months respectively, and never goverend at all. hardly the 'four years of instituting democracy' you spoke of.
The 'people' never made any decision at all regarding their government until the 1919 civil war when they started to side with the Reds over the Whites, but that was more because the whites were backed by waves of foreign armies invading Russia, such as the US and the Japanese, than by any politics.
OK, anyways, back on track in this thread:
Polls taken in Iraq date from befoe the recent insurgency, and before elements of the Shi'ites joined the anti-US revolts. They are before the US killed an estimated 3000 Iraqis in this latest struggle. And even then those polls showed a bare majority being optimistic of the future, while a srong minority actively opposed the US and its interference.
As I have said before, given the lack of history, the lack of action on the part of the Iraqis and the incongruity of a religious government that is supposed to be religious, it is not up to nay sayers to prove US imposed democracy will not work in the very short term, it is up to the Bush-proponents to prove that it will, despite no coherent plan on how it will be done. (Thanks to Bush's refusal to allow any significant post-war planning)
Personally, with all the tribal and ethnic factions over there, I believe we are
erring in not partitioning the country---a Kurdish area, Shiite domain, and
Sunni region ---others if need be. Make Baghdad an open city. I also don't
believe our idea of democracy will work over all the more so if the radical Is-
lamic element is not eliminated.
erring in not partitioning the country---a Kurdish area, Shiite domain, and
Sunni region ---others if need be. Make Baghdad an open city. I also don't
believe our idea of democracy will work over all the more so if the radical Is-
lamic element is not eliminated.
QUOTE(eric1 @ Apr 22 2004, 12:40 PM)
Personally, with all the tribal and ethnic factions over there, I believe we are
erring in not partitioning the country---a Kurdish area, Shiite domain, and
Sunni region ---others if need be. Make Baghdad an open city. I also don't
believe our idea of democracy will work over all the more so if the radical Is-
lamic element is not eliminated.
erring in not partitioning the country---a Kurdish area, Shiite domain, and
Sunni region ---others if need be. Make Baghdad an open city. I also don't
believe our idea of democracy will work over all the more so if the radical Is-
lamic element is not eliminated.
It isn't really an option to give the Kurds independence. Turkey has threatened to invade if that happens, and the aggression is already starting . It doesn't look good. I agree that the factions should all have some sort of equal representation in government, however.
QUOTE
Free elections mean the Iraq people get to make up their own minds. Regardless of who it is, it is pretty clear they will elect someone religious and nationalistic.
I don't think we should discredit the intelligence of the average Iraqi. Iraqi's are far more educated than most in the Middle East, and they have also been through the most turmoil. I think many (most? who knows) will seek out those who can best bring peace to the area, not those who espouse radical ideas that are likely to lead down the same path that they have just been. Also, I'm sure the council is setting up a form of government that will eliminate the ability of a few radical elements to disrupt the entire country.
Or maybe I'm just being naive??? I hope not....
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Apr 22 2004, 09:40 PM)
I don't think we should discredit the intelligence of the average Iraqi. Iraqi's are far more educated than most in the Middle East, and they have also been through the most turmoil. I think many (most? who knows) will seek out those who can best bring peace to the area, not those who espouse radical ideas that are likely to lead down the same path that they have just been.
I think you are missing the point.
An islamic government that does not like the US is not 'radical' in the middle east, rather it is the norm. Oh to be sure, they probably will not vote for or follow some Bin Laden clone bent on the annihilation of all things Western, but they will follow a centrist, nationalist, anti-US religious leader.
The future leader of Iraq being Islamic is almost a trusim, and you will have to search long and hard to find an Iraqi religious leader who is pro-US.
No, they will not elect some radical government. They will follow an anti-US, pro Iraq ledaer, which is the norm in that part of the world.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 22 2004, 10:22 AM)
Turnea made the comical point that its 'unlikely the clerics will run, and the most popular clerics are moderates'.
The reality is, several Iraqi religious leaders are already clamouring for their places in any upcoming election, and they are not terribly moderate. The Middle East does not have a huge number of (by Us standards) moderate clerics, and those that do exists are still pretty generally anti-US.[...]Regardless of who it is, it is pretty clear they will elect someone religious and nationalistic.
The reality is, several Iraqi religious leaders are already clamouring for their places in any upcoming election, and they are not terribly moderate. The Middle East does not have a huge number of (by Us standards) moderate clerics, and those that do exists are still pretty generally anti-US.[...]Regardless of who it is, it is pretty clear they will elect someone religious and nationalistic.
Although I agree that I am a pretty hilarious guy, that wasn't a joke (though if it got a laugh I'll take the credit anyway...
) ...But might you have any evidence to back these assertions up?
QUOTE(amf)
Actually, only SOME are optimistic, even by your own polls. And that was before the latest battles. SOME are NOT optimistic. And some are downright antagonistic toward anything instituted by Americans.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
And even then those polls showed a bare majority being optimistic of the future, while a srong minority actively opposed the US and its interference.
Not just some amf MOST and Vermillion, demonstrably false...
70% said their lives were going "good".
71% said they'd be even better in a year...
Hardly the stuff of a Bolshevik revolution, eh?
and with 15% wanting coalition troops to leave immediately, well if you want to call that a strong minority, it's your call...
QUOTE(amf)
I don't have to prove it. Iraqis will do it for us.
So we're down to this assumption. I've already provided evidence that your estimation of the character of the Iraqi people is off-target. If you can't back it up, well you're entitled to your opinion, but I'll stick with the evidence, thanks...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
As I have said before, given the lack of history, the lack of action on the part of the Iraqis and the incongruity of a religious government that is supposed to be religious, it is not up to nay sayers to prove US imposed democracy will not work in the very short term, it is up to the Bush-proponents to prove that it will
1. It is not far to label all of those who belive Iraq can succeed as "Bush-proponents", ultimately this is not about Bush...
2. We've got a couple of fallacious arguments in there (I wonder if Platypus knows I'm stealing his bit....
First a Non Sequitur which leads us straight into a Burden of Proof Fallacy
the fact that no democracy has arisen before in Iraq (or any of the other facts you mention) does not establish that no democracy is possible in Iraq. They support your argument, but they do not represent a "status quo" position.
A failure at establishing democracy before might work for that, but all you have now is a couple of pieces of evidence backing your position. No more than the other side, certainly.
Speaking of which...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Polls taken in Iraq date from befoe the recent insurgency, and before elements of the Shi'ites joined the anti-US revolts. They are before the US killed an estimated 3000 Iraqis in this latest struggle.
A possible point, but do you have any evidence of a popular opinion shift? By all accounts the fighting by Sadr's group is not reflective of the vast majority of Iraqi Shiites. I'm willing to consider this has changed the minds of the masses, if you have any proof...
Let's not forget that in February when this poll was taken, there was not an absence of unrest. Murderous bombers were hard at work in Kirkuk, Baghdad(2),Irbil, and anywhere else they could drag their farce of an uprising. Iraqis were responding under pressure back then, and yet the outlook was positive...
So why has it necessarily changed now?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
An islamic government that does not like the US is not 'radical' in the middle east, rather it is the norm. Oh to be sure, they probably will not vote for or follow some Bin Laden clone bent on the annihilation of all things Western, but they will follow a centrist, nationalist, anti-US religious leader
So back to proving this assertion, what national Iraqi leaders do you have in mind that will so clearly be elected, remember that I posted Iraqi feel civil rights and democracy are more important than a government reflecting religious ideals...
It's question #16 in the poll.
I find myself (in my opinion of course) trying to justify that the sky is blue.
Let me put this another way. Are any of these facts in dispute?
1) The norm across the entire arabic Middle east is to be anti-US in one degree or another. In Dubahi and UAE it is pretty moderate. In Saudi Arabia and Syria it is quite fierce. However, there are no populations in the Middle east where the general civil consensus is 'pro' US.
2) The focus for a lot of this anti-US feling has traditionally (though not universally or exclusively) been the Islamic clerics. In Saudi, Syria, Jordan and Iran it is the religious authorities who tend to lead the drive both for conservativism inside the country, and against 'the West' outside the country. I have spent some time in Saudi, and without question the worst of the anti-Western sentiment was being organised by the clergy.
3) The centre of most of the revolts in Iraq have been led by extremist clerics. Now clearly there are clerics in Iraq who are not as extremist, and who have not led any kind of violent protest, but so far the main anti-US leaders have been religious leaders.
4) Iraq, now freed from the Baath, is a state with an islamic population. According to the CIA world factbook, 97% of the population is Muslim. It stands to reason that, if given their druthers, the Iraqi people will elect a religious leader. In fact, the only three Iraqis so far to indicate they would run in any election have all been clerics.
5) There are few to no actively pro-US Clerics in Iraq with any position. The only two I know of were assassinated last year: Seyyed Abdelmajid al-Khoei by a bomb and Abd al-Majid al-Khoi by a mob of anti_US protesters. There are two minor religious figures on the governing council, but then again in the last year three members of the governing council (including the only woman) were assassinated. I also just found out that there is a communist party representative on the governing council... who knew...
So, given all that, I find it difficult to accept your assertion that the next Iraqi government, if truly elected by the people, will be anything but anti-US. Even moderate clerics, who distance themselves from Al Qaeda and speak of rebuilding the country, tend to be anti-west, it is the norm in this part of the world.
These are not assertions, you can check any of them on any one of a hundred news sites. I dont need to 'justify' the fact that the US is generally disliked in the Middle east in general and in Iraq in particular, thats axiomatic.
A lot of people may believe their lives are better off now then they were under Iraq, certainly the Kurdish minority thinks so. But that does not make them pro-US by any stretch of the imagination.
Again, as I stated in a previous post, if we were taking about Iraq developing its own democracy, I might agree that it was possible. We are not, we are talking about the US imposing a democracy on an occupied state in the space of a year or two, without (so far) any coherent plan about how this is going to happen. Does it seem unreasonable given that, AND given the lack of any history of democracy in the region, AND given the consistent undertone of anti-US and Anti_west feeling that has existed in Iraq and the Middle east for decades, I am skeptical as to how the US will make this work? If they were serious about makingit work, why did Bush forbid any extensive post-war planning on this exact issue prior to the invasion?
"By all accounts"? The fact is neither of us has any idea at all how a major Shi'ite cleric leading a revolt against the US (when the Shi'ites were not involved when the poll was taken) and the killing of another 3000 Iraqis will affect the polls. You say by all accounts the majority do not agree with the revolt, but you have NO more idea if that is true then I do. However, given that major figures of both major religions are now in conflict with the US, I dont think it was unreasonable to assume that the growing revolt and the heavy handed response by the US would NOT make more people love the US.
Eventually another poll will be taken in Iraq, and then we will see. What I CAN tell you is that in the SAME amount of time, the recent events in Iraq have caused a serious drop in popularity for the War inside the US:
So, do I think that given all this recent actions have diminished further the popularity of the US in Iraq? In truth I don't know, and neither do you. But it does seem likely...
I have said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to me to prove democracy will not work. It is up to proponents of the plan to demonstrate that a foreign imposed new system of government put in place without extensive planning in a couple years WILL work. So far, nobody has even tried to do that, the best the optimists can come up with is "Well, we don't know it WON'T work..."
Let me put this another way. Are any of these facts in dispute?
1) The norm across the entire arabic Middle east is to be anti-US in one degree or another. In Dubahi and UAE it is pretty moderate. In Saudi Arabia and Syria it is quite fierce. However, there are no populations in the Middle east where the general civil consensus is 'pro' US.
2) The focus for a lot of this anti-US feling has traditionally (though not universally or exclusively) been the Islamic clerics. In Saudi, Syria, Jordan and Iran it is the religious authorities who tend to lead the drive both for conservativism inside the country, and against 'the West' outside the country. I have spent some time in Saudi, and without question the worst of the anti-Western sentiment was being organised by the clergy.
3) The centre of most of the revolts in Iraq have been led by extremist clerics. Now clearly there are clerics in Iraq who are not as extremist, and who have not led any kind of violent protest, but so far the main anti-US leaders have been religious leaders.
4) Iraq, now freed from the Baath, is a state with an islamic population. According to the CIA world factbook, 97% of the population is Muslim. It stands to reason that, if given their druthers, the Iraqi people will elect a religious leader. In fact, the only three Iraqis so far to indicate they would run in any election have all been clerics.
5) There are few to no actively pro-US Clerics in Iraq with any position. The only two I know of were assassinated last year: Seyyed Abdelmajid al-Khoei by a bomb and Abd al-Majid al-Khoi by a mob of anti_US protesters. There are two minor religious figures on the governing council, but then again in the last year three members of the governing council (including the only woman) were assassinated. I also just found out that there is a communist party representative on the governing council... who knew...
So, given all that, I find it difficult to accept your assertion that the next Iraqi government, if truly elected by the people, will be anything but anti-US. Even moderate clerics, who distance themselves from Al Qaeda and speak of rebuilding the country, tend to be anti-west, it is the norm in this part of the world.
These are not assertions, you can check any of them on any one of a hundred news sites. I dont need to 'justify' the fact that the US is generally disliked in the Middle east in general and in Iraq in particular, thats axiomatic.
A lot of people may believe their lives are better off now then they were under Iraq, certainly the Kurdish minority thinks so. But that does not make them pro-US by any stretch of the imagination.
QUOTE
the fact that no democracy has arisen before in Iraq (or any of the other facts you mention) does not establish that no democracy is possible in Iraq. They support your argument, but they do not represent a "status quo" position.
Again, as I stated in a previous post, if we were taking about Iraq developing its own democracy, I might agree that it was possible. We are not, we are talking about the US imposing a democracy on an occupied state in the space of a year or two, without (so far) any coherent plan about how this is going to happen. Does it seem unreasonable given that, AND given the lack of any history of democracy in the region, AND given the consistent undertone of anti-US and Anti_west feeling that has existed in Iraq and the Middle east for decades, I am skeptical as to how the US will make this work? If they were serious about makingit work, why did Bush forbid any extensive post-war planning on this exact issue prior to the invasion?
QUOTE
A possible point, but do you have any evidence of a popular opinion shift? By all accounts the fighting by Sadr's group is not reflective of the vast majority of Iraqi Shiites. I'm willing to consider this has changed the minds of the masses, if you have any proof...
"By all accounts"? The fact is neither of us has any idea at all how a major Shi'ite cleric leading a revolt against the US (when the Shi'ites were not involved when the poll was taken) and the killing of another 3000 Iraqis will affect the polls. You say by all accounts the majority do not agree with the revolt, but you have NO more idea if that is true then I do. However, given that major figures of both major religions are now in conflict with the US, I dont think it was unreasonable to assume that the growing revolt and the heavy handed response by the US would NOT make more people love the US.
Eventually another poll will be taken in Iraq, and then we will see. What I CAN tell you is that in the SAME amount of time, the recent events in Iraq have caused a serious drop in popularity for the War inside the US:
QUOTE
(CBC newsworld, April 22nd 2004)
An AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 Amercians released Wednesday found that the number of people who think going to war in Iraq was right, at 48 per cent, was now roughly equal to the 49 per cent of those surveyed who think it was a mistake.
Support for the U.S.-led action stood at more than about 65 per cent in December.
According to the poll, the number of those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased to 54 percent now, up from 40 percent in December.
An AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 Amercians released Wednesday found that the number of people who think going to war in Iraq was right, at 48 per cent, was now roughly equal to the 49 per cent of those surveyed who think it was a mistake.
Support for the U.S.-led action stood at more than about 65 per cent in December.
According to the poll, the number of those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased to 54 percent now, up from 40 percent in December.
So, do I think that given all this recent actions have diminished further the popularity of the US in Iraq? In truth I don't know, and neither do you. But it does seem likely...
I have said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to me to prove democracy will not work. It is up to proponents of the plan to demonstrate that a foreign imposed new system of government put in place without extensive planning in a couple years WILL work. So far, nobody has even tried to do that, the best the optimists can come up with is "Well, we don't know it WON'T work..."
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 23 2004, 09:22 AM)
5) There are few to no actively pro-US Clerics in Iraq with any position. The only two I know of were assassinated last year: Seyyed Abdelmajid al-Khoei by a bomb and Abd al-Majid al-Khoi by a mob of anti_US protesters. There are two minor religious figures on the governing council, but then again in the last year three members of the governing council (including the only woman) were assassinated. I also just found out that there is a communist party representative on the governing council... who knew...
So, given all that, I find it difficult to accept your assertion that the next Iraqi government, if truly elected by the people, will be anything but anti-US. Even moderate clerics, who distance themselves from Al Qaeda and speak of rebuilding the country, tend to be anti-west, it is the norm in this part of the world.
So, given all that, I find it difficult to accept your assertion that the next Iraqi government, if truly elected by the people, will be anything but anti-US. Even moderate clerics, who distance themselves from Al Qaeda and speak of rebuilding the country, tend to be anti-west, it is the norm in this part of the world.
Well there are a few holes in that argument...
1. Your assumption about all powerful clerics in Iraq being actively anti-US is simply false. I'm sure you have heard that Iraq's leading cleric is Ayatollah Sistani. Not only is he not anti-US, he is of a school of thought that clerics should not interfere in government. He has denounced violence repeatedly and has cooperated with the US on occasion.
2. Islamic parties do not necessarily advocate anti-US policies, regardless of whether the population likes the US or not. Simply put, Arabs know it is foolish to attempt to harm the US through actions of their government, no matter how much they are disliked.
3. Even if those elected are anti-US in the mold of the citizenry of Iraq, that is not as bad as one might think. Gallup back in October published a poll of Baghdad that included questions about opinions of the US. 44% have an unfavorable opinion of the US, 27% are ambivalent, 20% favorable. This doesn't even include the much more supportive Kurdish region. Perhaps there is substantial anti-US feeling, but not at level high enough to cause government policies to be harmful to the US.
Here's a brief overview of some prominent Iraqi leaders, parties, etc.
Who's Who in Post-Saddam Iraq
None of them look like any particular danger to me. They might not want to give us a big hug...
But that hardly means a democratic Iraqi is "bad" for the US, that is still an unjustified conclusion.
Right now according to polling the Daawa Party, Iraqi Islamic Party, and the "Higher council of Islamic revolution" seem to have the most support outside of Kurdistan. SCIRI is in the running too of course. That said, most Iraqi's simply won't say or don't know who they will vote for. I know that SCIRI and Daawa are cooperating with the coalition (both have members on the council) and they are the two strongest, especially among the Shia. So where are these anti-US leaders I'm hearing about?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
A lot of people may believe their lives are better off now then they were under Iraq, certainly the Kurdish minority thinks so. But that does not make them pro-US by any stretch of the imagination.
You know, even though I posted those polls many times (a opinion shared by myself and my ideological opponents in this debate
) I'm beginning to wonder whether anyone actually reads the blessed things!
NOT a minority, the majority feel they are better off than before the war...
About 56.% Most of the rest say it is about the same...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
"By all accounts"? The fact is neither of us has any idea at all how a major Shi'ite cleric leading a revolt against the US (when the Shi'ites were not involved when the poll was taken) and the killing of another 3000 Iraqis will affect the polls. You say by all accounts the majority do not agree with the revolt, but you have NO more idea if that is true then I do.
Why would you say that? When I said by all accounts, might it have been possible I had some "accounts" in mind?
QUOTE
As the days go by, a full-fledged Shiite uprising in Sadr's support is looking less likely. Most Shiites, about 60 percent of Iraq's population, insist that they should become the arbiters of political power. But they see fighting for it now - with the US still battling Sunni insurgents - as premature.
No wide Shiite rally to Sadr's forces
QUOTE
The Americans are sounding tough, saying they will arrest Moqtada Sadr and crush his militia.
They seem to have lost patience with quiet, behind-the-scenes mediation.
But if the violence continues and the silent majority remains silent, Sadr's support may grow.
Shia split over Iraqi 'uprising'
QUOTE
It is believed to have no more 10,000 members and Dr Dodge suggests the number is much less.
However, as the BBC's Paul Wood reports, Moqtada Sadr is believed to have the support of up to 15% of Iraq's Shia community, or just under 2.5 million people.
However, as the BBC's Paul Wood reports, Moqtada Sadr is believed to have the support of up to 15% of Iraq's Shia community, or just under 2.5 million people.
Who are Iraq's Mehdi Army?
and I'd call that a high-end estimate. Before this insurrection .6% of Iraqis said he was their most trusted leader with several members of the Governing Council (yes, the American appointed leaders are more trusted than Sadr) beating him badly in that estimation, (though no one was above 10%).
In contrast no accounts I have read have pointed to any opinion shift among the Iraqi Shia or anyone else...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Again, as I stated in a previous post, if we were taking about Iraq developing its own democracy, I might agree that it was possible. We are not, we are talking about the US imposing a democracy on an occupied state in the space of a year or two, without (so far) any coherent plan about how this is going to happen. Does it seem unreasonable given that, AND given the lack of any history of democracy in the region, AND given the consistent undertone of anti-US and Anti_west feeling that has existed in Iraq and the Middle east for decades, I am skeptical as to how the US will make this work?[...]I have said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to me to prove democracy will not work. It is up to proponents of the plan to demonstrate that a foreign imposed new system of government put in place without extensive planning in a couple years WILL work. So far, nobody has even tried to do that, the best the optimists can come up with is "Well, we don't know it WON'T work..."
Your skepticism does not mean the burden of proof is on the other side. Heck, I'm skeptical that the nation of Iraq can be stopped from forming a democracy, since it is what they desire...
1. I'm a realist by the way, it's why I prefer to argue in hard facts rather than nebulous generalizations...
2. Your "burden of proof" argument is simply sloppy logic. The burden of proof is no more on me than it is on you. Just because something seems unlikely in your estimation, doesn't mean that in the eyes of reason you are right until proven wrong... There is a reason this argument if listed as fallacious on the site I linked to
We must both back up our positions, since there is not prior example of an attempt at Iraqi democracy to base the argument on...
Sponsoring a secular but illegitimate government to counter an anti-American religious threat? My, that sounds quite a lot like the early 1980s, when Iraq was suppported as a bulwark against the new Iranian theocratic regime.
Even if it is true that a democratic government would be worse for the US than a puppet government in the short term, I don't think that the US, given its long-standing and completely just commitment to democratic principles, could deny Iraq democratic freedoms for its own foreign-policy ends. That would plumb the depths of hypocrisy and immorality.
As for whether democracy in Iraq is feasible, that cannot yet be known, but we can be absolutely certain that Iraq will not be democratic until democracy is instituted (that is so true as to be essentially tautology). We have a chance to institute it now.
Even if it is true that a democratic government would be worse for the US than a puppet government in the short term, I don't think that the US, given its long-standing and completely just commitment to democratic principles, could deny Iraq democratic freedoms for its own foreign-policy ends. That would plumb the depths of hypocrisy and immorality.
As for whether democracy in Iraq is feasible, that cannot yet be known, but we can be absolutely certain that Iraq will not be democratic until democracy is instituted (that is so true as to be essentially tautology). We have a chance to institute it now.
..and here's yet more perspective on the extent to with Sadr and his group are isolated within the Shia community...
Radical Cleric Is Unwanted by His Neighbors
Shades of Saddam as Najaf bows to Sadr
Sadr base of support is still a tiny minority, still no evidence of a major public opinion shift since February.
QUOTE
The black-turbaned imam sounded ready for martyrdom.
Standing in the courtyard of the golden-domed Shrine of Ali on Friday, staring at 2,500 worshipers seated on rugs, the imam, Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi, hurled words as sharp as scimitars at the army that had invaded this holy city.
But the soldiers he denounced were not Americans but members of the ragtag Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army. Dozens of them, bristling with Kalashnikovs and grenade belts, surrounded the shrine even as Mr. Kubanchi spoke.
They and their young spiritual leader, Moktada al-Sadr, had brought their war with the Americans to Najaf nearly three weeks ago, when they retreated here after a short-lived revolt against the occupation forces. More than 2,500 American soldiers have encircled the city in an attempt to flush out Mr. Sadr — and the residents here are caught in the middle.
"It's not brave to take refuge in the house or the mosque or the markets and use women and children as human shields," Mr. Kubanchi said of the Mahdi Army. "They are people who are trying to cheat you, and they are people from the regime of Saddam Hussein, former intelligence officers. They want to drag you into battle to be destroyed. If that happens, the soldiers will attack Najaf, and our enemies will happily see our blood flow."
The standoff in Najaf has turned into a showdown between the clerics of the city and Mr. Sadr, as the religious and tribal leaders here try to nudge their unwanted neighbor out of town. [...]
Gingerly, since Mr. Sadr now runs the city, they have handed out flyers and given speeches urging the Mahdi Army to take its fight elsewhere. They have done so while their mosques and homes are surrounded by undisciplined militiamen.[...]
Even as Mr. Kubanchi began his tirade in Najaf against the Mahdi Army, Mr. Sadr walked into a mosque full of worshipers pumping their fists in the air.
"We will be human time bombs which will explode in their faces," Mr. Sadr said. "They have humiliated us, so how will we react? We believe we can humiliate them."
Mr. Sadr delivered his sermon wrapped in the kind of white cloth usually draped over a Muslim's body before burial.
Standing in the courtyard of the golden-domed Shrine of Ali on Friday, staring at 2,500 worshipers seated on rugs, the imam, Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi, hurled words as sharp as scimitars at the army that had invaded this holy city.
But the soldiers he denounced were not Americans but members of the ragtag Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army. Dozens of them, bristling with Kalashnikovs and grenade belts, surrounded the shrine even as Mr. Kubanchi spoke.
They and their young spiritual leader, Moktada al-Sadr, had brought their war with the Americans to Najaf nearly three weeks ago, when they retreated here after a short-lived revolt against the occupation forces. More than 2,500 American soldiers have encircled the city in an attempt to flush out Mr. Sadr — and the residents here are caught in the middle.
"It's not brave to take refuge in the house or the mosque or the markets and use women and children as human shields," Mr. Kubanchi said of the Mahdi Army. "They are people who are trying to cheat you, and they are people from the regime of Saddam Hussein, former intelligence officers. They want to drag you into battle to be destroyed. If that happens, the soldiers will attack Najaf, and our enemies will happily see our blood flow."
The standoff in Najaf has turned into a showdown between the clerics of the city and Mr. Sadr, as the religious and tribal leaders here try to nudge their unwanted neighbor out of town. [...]
Gingerly, since Mr. Sadr now runs the city, they have handed out flyers and given speeches urging the Mahdi Army to take its fight elsewhere. They have done so while their mosques and homes are surrounded by undisciplined militiamen.[...]
Even as Mr. Kubanchi began his tirade in Najaf against the Mahdi Army, Mr. Sadr walked into a mosque full of worshipers pumping their fists in the air.
"We will be human time bombs which will explode in their faces," Mr. Sadr said. "They have humiliated us, so how will we react? We believe we can humiliate them."
Mr. Sadr delivered his sermon wrapped in the kind of white cloth usually draped over a Muslim's body before burial.
Radical Cleric Is Unwanted by His Neighbors
QUOTE
Now, a year from Saddam’s fall, history seems at risk of repeating itself in Najaf, as once again, the will of the silent majority bends to that of the violent minority.
US troops massed outside the city have yet to carry out their threat to "capture or kill" Sadr in his barricaded hide-out in a local shrine, fearing a mass uprising if they do so. But there are plenty of locals who would be secretly overjoyed.
The whispered parallels between Saddam and Sadr, it seems, go well beyond sales of sycophantic merchandising.
"Nobody likes him here at all," said taxi driver Khalid Mishbeel, who waited until he was well out of town before speaking his mind.
"I earn my living taking pilgrims into Najaf, but since all this trouble here there have been hardly any coming here.
"Most people have no problem with the coalition - if you don’t hurt them, they don’t hurt you. But I tell you, people here are afraid of him, because he has all the men and all the guns, just like Saddam.
"If you complain about him, you will get his men coming round to your house to question you. That is why everybody puts his picture in their shops."
US troops massed outside the city have yet to carry out their threat to "capture or kill" Sadr in his barricaded hide-out in a local shrine, fearing a mass uprising if they do so. But there are plenty of locals who would be secretly overjoyed.
The whispered parallels between Saddam and Sadr, it seems, go well beyond sales of sycophantic merchandising.
"Nobody likes him here at all," said taxi driver Khalid Mishbeel, who waited until he was well out of town before speaking his mind.
"I earn my living taking pilgrims into Najaf, but since all this trouble here there have been hardly any coming here.
"Most people have no problem with the coalition - if you don’t hurt them, they don’t hurt you. But I tell you, people here are afraid of him, because he has all the men and all the guns, just like Saddam.
"If you complain about him, you will get his men coming round to your house to question you. That is why everybody puts his picture in their shops."
Shades of Saddam as Najaf bows to Sadr
Sadr base of support is still a tiny minority, still no evidence of a major public opinion shift since February.
Never one to belabor a point.
New poll results are in and Iraqis continue to make clear their desire for democracy and the rejection of Iran-style theocracy. Though I must concede that support for a coalition pull-out after June 30th is high now (as many for as against)... the point remains that Iraqi's desire for democracy is still evident.
[URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-key-findings2.htm]
Key questions for Day 2, Part 1[/URL]
The biggest hurdles as I see them are the overwhelming force of Arab media propaganda and street gossip (it's effects on preceptions of troops is clear) and lack of will here in the US to follow through.
Whether or not the actual society can sustain democracy, doesn't really worry me a bit...
New poll results are in and Iraqis continue to make clear their desire for democracy and the rejection of Iran-style theocracy. Though I must concede that support for a coalition pull-out after June 30th is high now (as many for as against)... the point remains that Iraqi's desire for democracy is still evident.
[URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-key-findings2.htm]
Key questions for Day 2, Part 1[/URL]
The biggest hurdles as I see them are the overwhelming force of Arab media propaganda and street gossip (it's effects on preceptions of troops is clear) and lack of will here in the US to follow through.
Whether or not the actual society can sustain democracy, doesn't really worry me a bit...
QUOTE(turnea @ Apr 29 2004, 09:11 PM)
Never one to belabor a point.
The biggest hurdles as I see them are the overwhelming force of Arab media propaganda and street gossip (it's effects on preceptions of troops is clear) and lack of will here in the US to follow through.
The biggest hurdles as I see them are the overwhelming force of Arab media propaganda and street gossip (it's effects on preceptions of troops is clear) and lack of will here in the US to follow through.
You? Belabor a point?
Your misreading the situation, though. The hurdles you mention are important, but not as important as providing security on the streets. We are understaffed and inadequately trained to do street patrols. The Iraqi police force is better at vanishing than stopping crime. Effective policing requires 20 police to every 1000 people; our troops are not anything close to that strength over there and this Administration doesn't have the backing to increase the troops after having so many of them died this month and the ever-shifting explanations about why we're there and how long our National Guard will be stuck there.
And we're all positive they "desire" this crazy thing called democracy, but few there really are willing to die for it, so the strength of that desire just isn't going to be measured in polls. Lots of Arabs in the middle east desire democracy. How many democratic countries are there in the middle east?
QUOTE(turnea @ Apr 29 2004, 08:11 PM)
Whether or not the actual society can sustain democracy, doesn't really worry me a bit...
It should, turnea.
However long we are there to prop up the start of democracy, if they cannot sustain it, we will have to go back, again, or possibly face renewed terrorist threats.
Look at the former Yugoslav area. Once Tito died, the parliament they tried to develop fell apart because of ethnic and religious infighting. We are still in that region trying to keep the peace.
Do we really want to have to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq to maintain the peace?
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 29 2004, 07:29 PM)
Your misreading the situation, though. The hurdles you mention are important, but not as important as providing security on the streets. We are understaffed and inadequately trained to do street patrols. The Iraqi police force is better at vanishing than stopping crime. Effective policing requires 20 police to every 1000 people; our troops are not anything close to that strength over there and this Administration doesn't have the backing to increase the troops after having so many of them died this month and the ever-shifting explanations about why we're there and how long our National Guard will be stuck there.
Well let me try and counter the notion that security is our biggest problem. I don't believe that it was addressed directly in this latest poll, though I could have overlooked it as it was presented in seperate parts. Back in February 53.6% of Iraqis actually said their own security situation was better than before the war. There was still concern on a national level, but basic order is being maintained rather well, percieved lack of troops notwithstanding.
I do agree that domestic disquiet is an issue here...
QUOTE(amf)
And we're all positive they "desire" this crazy thing called democracy, but few there really are willing to die for it, so the strength of that desire just isn't going to be measured in polls. Lots of Arabs in the middle east desire democracy. How many democratic countries are there in the middle east?
turnea
turnea
Perhaps, but I suspect you are misjudging why...
It's not the culture in my estimation, but individual circumstances that are no longer at work in Iraq. I put it this way in another thread.
QUOTE(Turnea)
QUOTE(UltimateJoe)
You are making several dangerous assumptions here Turnea. The first (and foremost) is that what the majority wants is what will be achieved. This is often untrue in any state, whether a liberal democracy like Canada (most people want Marijuana decriminalized) or the U.S. (most people still oppose same-sex marriages) or even an authoritarian state like Iran (where most people want reform.)
I agree that I am concluding that the will of the majority will be followed in Iraq. I would not, however, call it an assumption. Rather an educated conclusion. It is true that minority positions do often overrule the majority but this is the exception and not the rule (otherwise being a majority wouldn't really be a big deal, and if American history has taught me anything, it is...)
For good or ill the majority usually rules. There are three notable situations that can derail this.
1. As you pointed out with same-sex marriage debate sometimes the concentration of political authority with those who hold the minority position can throw things off. Fortunately most of those with power in Iraq (or even most of the religious leaders) want democracy for Iraq.
2. The minority could overcome the majority by force a'la the Baath revolution. Fortunately, the coalition and Iraqi police have their opponents drastically outgunned. Forcing them to hide. They can become irritants, but not rulers.
3. Money makes the world go round. The coalition, with the world's top three economic powers at the head, wins this contest hands down.
So I see no way the minority can wrest the dreams of Iraqis for democracy away from them.
Iraqis may not be fighting as hard as they could or should but it should be hard enough anyway. Iraqi leaders fighting against the almost universally reviled terrorists would be helpful though...
QUOTE(NiteGuy)
It should, turnea.[...]
Look at the former Yugoslav area. Once Tito died, the parliament they tried to develop fell apart because of ethnic and religious infighting. We are still in that region trying to keep the peace.
Look at the former Yugoslav area. Once Tito died, the parliament they tried to develop fell apart because of ethnic and religious infighting. We are still in that region trying to keep the peace.
Don't get me wrong, I see the concern but I don't think Iraq is likley to follow down this path. Sunni and Shia in Iraq have not started fighting each other at high levels. They have cooperated to some extent in local government (or rather I'v enot heard about their inability to do so...). It's a possible failing point, but I fail to see why it is likely.
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
i think that it will be hard, as mentioned before thousands of years of autocratic rule are hard to overcome. however, if the country wants any hope of having a democracy and freedom, it must start somewhere. even though i disagree with the beginnings of the "liberation" i think now is a good time.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
i think they want iraq to have a successful democracy so that at least one good thing (besides catching saddam) comes out of the war. i am sure theyd love iraq to like the us, but obviously this is unreasonable and very unlikely. in conclusion, id have to begrudgingly say yes
i think that it will be hard, as mentioned before thousands of years of autocratic rule are hard to overcome. however, if the country wants any hope of having a democracy and freedom, it must start somewhere. even though i disagree with the beginnings of the "liberation" i think now is a good time.
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
i think they want iraq to have a successful democracy so that at least one good thing (besides catching saddam) comes out of the war. i am sure theyd love iraq to like the us, but obviously this is unreasonable and very unlikely. in conclusion, id have to begrudgingly say yes
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Feb 10 2004, 10:34 AM)
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Iraq is, in theory, the cradle of civilisation, much of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations lived where Iraq is now. In those 5000+ years until today, there has NEVER been a Democratic state in Iraq, nor is there any real tradition of Democracy in Arab or Islamic states. Given that, would a durable democratic state be feasable?
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
If the Iraqi people are given free vote, it is very likely that they will elect a religious leadership. Given the close ties of the people and Church with Iran, or saudi Arabia (depending on which segment you are talking about) it seems very unlikely that this new Islamic State would be friendly towards the US for very long at all. Assuming the US does not plan to leave troops there to ensure Lioyalty, would a democratic state in Iraq not just end up being anti-US?
I wouldn't agree with your first assertion. Islamic majority governments such as Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, and Singapore have shown to be pretty stable in terms of democracy and holding things together. Moorish Spain was certainly more democratic and hospitable to people than Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella. I believe the main problem in Iraq, and perhaps why it doesn't have a history of democracy is becaue of the three dominant groups who hate each other, but are forced to be with one another because the Brits drew the boundaries. In an ideal world, the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds would have their own borders, but their neighbors wouldn't appreciate this at all and there would probably be a fight over resources.
Your second point is right on. If we truly want democracy for them, we only want it according to how it will effect us and our interests($$)
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Feb 10 2004, 10:34 AM)
A lot has been said about the shape of the Post War Iraq. Right now it is being ruled by appointees, but clearly at some point there is going to have to be a transition to self-rule.
The US will be trying to set up a government in Iraq, and according to all noises coming from the White House, this will be a Democratic state.
Is this feasable or practical? This questions has two branches to it:
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Iraq is, in theory, the cradle of civilisation, much of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations lived where Iraq is now. In those 5000+ years until today, there has NEVER been a Democratic state in Iraq, nor is there any real tradition of Democracy in Arab or Islamic states. Given that, would a durable democratic state be feasable?
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
If the Iraqi people are given free vote, it is very likely that they will elect a religious leadership. Given the close ties of the people and Church with Iran, or saudi Arabia (depending on which segment you are talking about) it seems very unlikely that this new Islamic State would be friendly towards the US for very long at all. Assuming the US does not plan to leave troops there to ensure Lioyalty, would a democratic state in Iraq not just end up being anti-US?
What is the solution?
The US will be trying to set up a government in Iraq, and according to all noises coming from the White House, this will be a Democratic state.
Is this feasable or practical? This questions has two branches to it:
1- Would a Democratic system work in a state with no tradition of democracy?
Iraq is, in theory, the cradle of civilisation, much of the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations lived where Iraq is now. In those 5000+ years until today, there has NEVER been a Democratic state in Iraq, nor is there any real tradition of Democracy in Arab or Islamic states. Given that, would a durable democratic state be feasable?
2- Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
If the Iraqi people are given free vote, it is very likely that they will elect a religious leadership. Given the close ties of the people and Church with Iran, or saudi Arabia (depending on which segment you are talking about) it seems very unlikely that this new Islamic State would be friendly towards the US for very long at all. Assuming the US does not plan to leave troops there to ensure Lioyalty, would a democratic state in Iraq not just end up being anti-US?
What is the solution?
Yes. In Iraq, there has been so much opression that the Iraqis have a chance to make their lives better and break out of their isolation and join the modern world.
QUOTE
Does the US really WANT Iraq to have a real Democracy?
Yes. The Middle East is isolated from the rest of the world because of the lack of freedoms and "state run" press, which reports propaganda and lies and the arab world isn't getting the real picture. Bush and others have made the point of saying that when Iraq becomes a democracy, others in the arab world will want reforms towards democracy. Kinda like Ike's "domino theory"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.