The US is currently using force to bring democracy to a group of people that have never experienced it. The US will only allow a Democratic state to emerge.

Is it a true democracy if it is forced onto the people?

Is it democratic to impose democracy?

It is difficult to say whether democracy can succeed in Iraq. The problem is, there are very few alternatives. The people in Iraq, though fairly well-educated for that region, do not understand democracy like Americans. As seen in Russia, the older generations will have difficulty embracing such a drastic change in lifestyle. The youth has a much better opportunity to reap its benefits. The Iraqi people have three distinctly different ethnic groups. It will be extremely difficult to elect a leader that can stabilize all of the groups.

I'm in agreement that it will be hard to have democracy there but it is also anti-democatic to force our democracy to others. I mena if you look at the democratic policy its al lfor the right of free elected leadership. well then why are we forcing leadership into a country that is probably still gonna hate us when we finish.

We don't even live in a democracy. We get the joys of being governed by a federal republic. I don't know which is worse. Both have inherent problems with a tyranny of the majority.

However, I do find forcing something onto another group of people is rather anti-democratic. I personally am more for an enlightened despotic government form, although that's a complete pipe dream; I see myself as the only enlightened despot I would live under. Democracy is the best-working form of governance the world knows that while enabling prosperity of subjects to the laws also is the most representative of the people. I don't deny that I am somewhat of an elitist, and I do believe that most people are rather stupid. I've known "stupid" people with a "Dr." in front of their names. A degree does not necessarily bestow intellect or comprehension. I also know some people who are smarter than myself who didn't graduate college. But I'm rambling about things that are irrelevant to the question.

Bottom line: yes, it is anti-democratic in a sense, but seems to be a required evil.

Well, no... By definition - if the majority of people don't want a democracy then imposing a democracy would make the government a despotic regime because it is a government forcing ideals onto the people. Of course, in a true democracy, if the majority of citizens (50.0000009%) did not want the democratic government, they could then vote it out and vote in an emperor or other form of government.

Democracy cannot be imposed. Democracy in its most obscure, idealogic form is not a specific way of governing, but more of a state of mind. Why didn't the serfs of the middle ages rise up and demand their equal share of rights and responsibilities? Why would it be hundreds of years before a popular uprising in any country would lead to a lasting government "by the people"? Because it took many, many years for the average joe to start expecting more than god-inspired suffering from life. It was not until common people actually started to agree with the elite philosophers who espoused representative government. Imagine being a 14th century serf with some nutcase Lord nicknack telling you, you had a right to demand the king listen to you? Your covered in mud and worried about whether or not your faster than the chicken you plan to eat that night... how could you ever think to advise the king about something like foreign trade? And for him to listen?

Changes like these come in generations... and now we have lovely eboards like this where anybody with internet access can speak their mind - and despite all the different view points, we all hold one belief "self-evident" - we are completely within our right to express our own opinion on just about any subject under the sun (Of course other peoples opinions can be a point of contension ) But what is obvious to me, a modern American was not obvious to my non-American ancestors. And its not obvious to people in every corner in the world. If it were, it seems to me, there would never have been a despotic Saddam to oust... or at least, the US would not have had to do it for the people of Iraq.

The Iraqis would have been fighting against Saddam before we got there, and then worked much closer with us. Now, I know there are many Iraqis who stood against Saddam and worked with the invading forces - but if the people of Iraq were really in a democratic state of mind, it would have been much more wide spread. Instead, from my US media-colored viewpoint, it looked like once again it was the elite philisophical types who wanted democracy - and many others who fought because they don't mind tyranny, as long as its from their side, not Saddam.

And of course another major problem of imposing democracy, is it misses a key element - the idea that some self-sacrifice/hard work/just plain participation is needed from every person for democracy to work. I think even America, the bastion of modern democracy that we are, is missing some of this - just look at the last presidential election and its problems. But, these elements are even more key to the beginning of the democracy. So, what we have now is the foreign troops putting their lives on the line so the indigent troops can quit because they don't want to have to confront fellow Iraqis. While the US soldiers interviewed feel they are sacrificing for a good cause - these americans were also raised in a democratic state of mind. These soldiers understand that its work to be a soldier and that democracy and freedom is built on the graves of soldiers who went before them. Every soldier I ever met has understood the phrase "freedom isn't free". But, in Iraq, it does appear free to the Iraqis. The foreigners are the ones paying the bills and piling up body bags, now that the war is "over". Even the many civilian casualties caused by Iraqi insurgents bring anger towards the foreigners instead of further gratitude for our sacrifices, because the Iraqi people still don't grasp the idea that to achieve freedom, and democracy, they have to sacrifice... the insurgents have to be confronted and stopped... Iraqis might have to fight against fellow Iraqis - shiites against other shiites even - if thats the only way to bring peace and to let the real Iraqi government take control.

Bottom line I guess - Democracy cannot be handed to anyone - either through diplomacy or military might... Democracy has to be grabbed by the people themselves. And its only after the people start understanding the basic tenets - the freedoms that come from democracy and the responsibilities too - that a true democracy can emerge.

It would be undemocratic to impose it on a populace that did not want it. However, most polls I have seen seem to suggest the average Iraqi wants democracy, regardless of how he/she feels about the US and the invasion. Of course that alone isn't a guarantee that democracy will succeed there. Plenty of nations have started off with noble goals and gone down the long dark road to dictatorship.

I do think though that the notion that democracy cannot be installed by a foreign power is a myth. That is exactly what we did with Germany and Japan following WW2, and like Iraq Japan had a thousand year history of autocratic rule.

Absolutely it is democratic... as long as the US is willing to accept the outcome of the vote. Therein, to quote the Bard, lies the rub. The odds are good that a democratic vote might result in a government being formed that the US will not approve of, say possibly an islamic, anti-West, nationalist government with ties to Iran.

Is the US prepared to see someone like this elected? then It is fair and democratic. If the people do not want it, they can feel free to vote themselves a theological autaucracy again, and dispose of the democratic process, as might be their will. Would the US accept that, or would they act like the USSR and intervene whenever someone they are close to has an election whose results they do not approve of?

A democracy exists when the people have the power to make societal decisions. The alternative is to have supreme societal power given to a few (kings, dictators, and central governments). Imposition of a democracy in Iraq suggests that such a system is unwelcomed by the Iraqi people. Most indicators suggest otherwise:

Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and founder of the Iraqi National Congress states that Iraqis want "sovereignty, democracy and justice."
http://www.wadinet.de/news/iraq/nw2300_whatiraqiswant.htm

According to the Oxford Research International in this BBC article, 90 percent of Iraqis want democracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3254028.stm

So in reality, the only people who were and are imposed upon are Saddam Hussain, Baathist elites, and their friends.

I think the problem that the USA and her allies face in Iraq is not that there is no appetite for democracy. That is simply not the case - Iraqis are desperate to have democratic elections right now.

The problem is that they would most likely vote for hardline Islamic clerics who would be very unlikely to be friendly towards the USA and other coalistion members.

Depending on your point of view, the allies are being anti-democratic by imposing and interim government of pro-Western secular politicians (what will happen after the June handover) with the expectation of them being friendly and allowing the allies to continue "nation-building" until such time as the Iraqi electorate has "matured" enough (or become docile enough?) to vote for someone we can do business with.

Alternatively, of course, one can simply view the Iraqi electorate as a whole country full of Turkeys that are just itching to vote for Christmas, and we are postponing the elections until some semblance of sense returns.

My hunch is that we are somewhere between the two positions. My worry is that we are rather closer to the first than the second.

Democracy can be and has been "imposed" on countries. It can be done successfully. Examples: Japan and Germany.

What we have in this case is a small, fanatical group who sees the danger to themselves that democracy entails.

Of course, democracy is a double edged sword. True democracy can either mean freedom or it can mean a tyranny of the majority. In this case, a Shia majority could impose restrictions on the Kurdish and Sunni minorities. What is needed is a democracy with protections for minorities.

Democracy in Iraq is certainly possible. "Imposing" is not only possible, it has been done before.

No & no respectively. Our form of "democracy" is not what they want. The vast majority of the people would choose an islamic republic if given the choice. I get such amusement about the "handing over of sovereignty" as if we've been recognized as the legitimate holders of it by the Iraqi people. As possessors of something we don't have, we are deluded into thinking we do possess it by word-smithing, as well as repetitive media images. The truly democratic thing would be to allow other nations go through transformations internally. Perhaps through funding pro-democracy political parties and civil rights leaders. It might have taken the form of supporting Kurdish pro-independence leaders, as well as Shia and Sunni clerics who are Mustafa Ataturks in the waiting.

NO and NO

Democracy is a "government by the people".

As yet all I see is a governing council and no election. Until there is a election there is no democracy.

After seeing your line, I just had to post a response. To me, this is truly an illegitimate hand-over if there ever was one. This has "puppet regime" written all over it. Not only that, but they really won't be that sovereign.


Steven R. Weisman, New York Times article: April 23rd,2004)


So, to recap-they are not elected, and they have no lawmaking powers. Yep, sounds like a free and sovereign power to me!! Noooo, no stool-pigeon here!!

Re: Iraq.

The "handover" is basically a rebranding of the occupation. Instead of an invading and occupying presence in Iraq the US et al are officially "invited" to roam Iraq. That's about it.

Iraq, like Russia, has never had a democracy and look at the state of Russia now (2nd most oil-rich nation on earth).

Forcing democracy on a country is undemocratic because you are killing people. The very people you're trying to "democratize". The Second World War is not a good example. Roosevelt was itching for war, not only with Japan but with Germany whilst the US population was dead set against it. Germany had had a democracy after WW1 and voted in Hitler, if you recall. So returning them to democracy was not such a big deal. Although Truman rubbing up Stalin the wrong way over reunite/don't reunite didn't help in reducing tensions in the area.

Anyway, the key reason why imposing democracy on a country is undemocratic is that you can't impose "democracy" because there is no such thing. There are only "types of democracy". You can only impose "a" democracy. And it is the form the democracy takes that only the imposer determines. Hence the Chechen rigged elections, for instance. Britain has a monarchy-centered democracy with a "first past the post" counting system (rather than proportional representation, like Italy's), the US has a strange electoral college getting in the way of The People's votes kind of federal democracy, Germany as a different but Federal democracy and so on.

The British already had a parliamentary system, they just widened the definition of who could vote and voila, instant democracy (even with one unelected chamber). Iraq was more soviet in nature and there was serious ethnic tensions. The main issue with Iraq is that there are not just rational political issues that affect and divide people but also the more irrational tinderbox that is religion.

Do they have sharia law lapping upon the shores of their constitution or should it form the main canals leading to their legislature? How much representation should the substantial minority Christian and Sunni religions have? Should there be a separation of church and state (as mocked by Bush)? Should there be a (let's face it) undemocratic two term limit on Presidential re-election? Etc.

The answers to these questions all form a democracy but not democracy itself. Democracy is an idea, like love is an idea but there are many forms of love (familial, paternal, romantic, grateful, caring, unfulfilled, friendship, religious etc).

The idea that the US is trying to "impose" democracy on Iraq is patently absurd. IRaqis WANT democracy. We are not deciding the form of government they shall have, Iraqi leaders are. After democractic institutions are setup, Iraqis themselves can have any government they want...

Therefore the questions for the debate are really moot in relation to Iraq. As is the silly discussion of the handover on June 30th. No one EVER said that was supposed to be a handover to a democratic government. They and the constitutional convention are simply meant to control Iraq while methods of elections are being setup. Hence the term "interim" government.

Iraq is not being "democratized", the coalition has merely removed the obstacle to the Iraqis existing wishes for democracy, namely the old regime...

That's another oversimplification. There is more than one obstacle to democracy. Look at the different factions fighting US troops and Iraqi Police as we type. They aren't the old regime.

Schooly

I agree 100%, I was merely pointing out the #1 offender...

That said, there is still no attempt to "impose" democracy, the questions still have no bearing on Iraq.

I guess that want comes from reading or watching television since Iraqis have no intrinsic idea of what democracy is or entails. Nothing to go on, just imagery or a vague idea of how it works by either the media or outside influence. No less a factor that muslims see America as sexually decadent, contrary to their value systems and political hypocrites.



Iraqs civilization is closely drawn to Islam which is not democratic, these are ingrained religious beliefs and the basis of Iraqi law.

I ask Turnea, what democracy does an Iraqi (in their deeper sense of self) know about in order to 'want'? An abstract ideal only, most likely not to come to fruition in great expectations of every family as rich. Not that is not achievable, but it most certainely IS being imposed at this point in time. Democracy is an education and a learning along the way, a very rocky way when you consider that Islamic clerics have the most sway due to religious belief and historical prescident, compounded by a basic distrust of America, its values and and its motives.

Iraqis will aslo be 'let down' by democracy. They will lack the kind of 'caretaking' that was only 15 years ago in Iraq, of free education and health care which to them have been entitlements before our influence and in their minds a benefit of being an oil rich nation. I think that Iraqi people will eventually shrug off american style democracy in light of thier own values and religion, to pursue a line of governance that is more in line with their base thinking and economics. Bad for us.

And yet...

There IS one successful and enduring Islamic democracy in the world: Turkey. True, it remains a democracy and not an Islamic theocracy only because the Turkish military remains faithful to Kemal Ataturk's last wish, and stages a coup every time a theocrat is elected, then hands power back to civilians once things are stabilized. An odd system but it works. Is it a true democracy if it has to have a coup periodically to stay a democracy? No, not really, but Turkey remains a free country and it's doing much better than any other Islamic country. That's nobody's ideal, just the best attainable trade-off. It just might be that the Turkish model is the best Iraq can do.

Yeah, I'm sure the 20,000 plus murdered Kurds think Turkey is a pretty great example of a free country. I certainly hope Iraq doesn't choose that model.

Can you force democracy? I suppose you can force the trappings of democracy. Of course to do so, whether successful or not, is by definition undemocratic. People have pointed to the success of Japan and Germany. But whether they are successful or not is beside the point.

Once again, we have a means-end question. Those who feel any means is worth what they deem a "noble" end will certainly feel that as long as we are setting up a democracy in the end, heck, we'll flay babies if that is what it takes. Even if we have to bomb them into the stone age, at least they'll be democratic cave people!

I suppose Iraqi's idea of democracy must indeed come form outside. But, so what? It is true that ignorance about democracy is a problem but...

Let's put things another way.

When polled (by Gallup this time) Iraqis (or in this poll, Baghdad residents) overwhelmingly desire a government that respects:
Freedom of speech

Freedom of religion: Relatively few Iraqis want a theocracy, they want everyone to worship as the wish.
and
Freedom of Assembly

That is not to say the concerns you voiced are totally unwarranted. When asked different questions about the components of democracy up to 23% of Iraqis say they don't know any components of democracy. That's quite a lot, but not the majority. Most have an idea that democracy means civil rights and elections. That's is what Iraqis are clamoring for. That is why this notion of "imposed democracy" is so foolish. There is not such thing going on in Iraq.

Sure Iraqis aren't to enamored with Americans (44% unfavorable, 27% ambivalent, 29% favorable, again in Baghdad)
but that doesn't mean they don't like democracy. It remains the favored choice of governments among Iraqis. Japan seems to be a fan favorite with Baghdadis (60% favorable as opposed to 10% unfavorable). They are a democracy...


Really? ..and what makes you say Islam is anymore anti-democratic than Christianity or the religions of the myriad other democracies of the world?

An excellent question, though your answer is off. When asked what the most important component of democracy was, "Issues of Freedom" came out on top. That is what Iraqis want after so many years of dictatorship, freedom.

Oh, and number two was fair elections... though jobs did come in tied for fifth

Education is one of the biggest hurdles faced, but the fact that the most powerful of the Iraqi clerics Ayatollah Sistani believes clerics should stay out of politics for the most part makes thing easier. They may not trust us, but what we need is for them to trust themselves...


Afraid not, reports and polls both show that Iraq education and health are now better than before the war under Saddam. One may blame this on sanctions (and one would likely be right) but it doesn't suggest Iraqis will abandon democracy to go back. If they want, there is a such thing as democratic socialism...
More on that here...
Iraq Reconstruction

Different Strokes :shrug:


Good thing none of that applies to Iraq eh?

Most Iraqis say there lives are better than before the war in a number of areas and overall. No caves for them!

And the ubiquitous poll, for anyone I haven't saturated yet....
A Better Life Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

Why yes, Quarkhead, the Turks have been quite beastly to the Kurds and much more so to the Armenians (the Turks murdered millions of them, not just thousands). I didn't say the Turkish prejudices and brutality should be emulated, only the way their government is structured.

But even that may not prove to be practical. We might just have to saw off the Kurdish portion of the country, which is pro-American and mostly used to self-government, and thus probably salvageable, and let the Sunni and Shiite portions terrorize each other, though I hope it doesn't come to that.

I doubt that the Sunnis and Shiites will terrorise each other. They aren't as divided as people often assume, as that poll seems to show (90% of Arabs want a unified country rather than a federal state or seperate countries).

The violence is, unfortunately, mostly caused by the presence of American troops (which are clearly still necessary for other, innumerable reasons). Once they have left there will still be problems, but they will be different, probably akin to the kind of problems suffered by other states trying out democracy - army coups, anti-democratic subversion from within the government etc.

The May 12th, 2004 Washington Post has a wonderful editorial Harold Meyerson. In it, he states:



and...



I believe it would be wise for Rumsfeld and company to read this article, since they clearly do not appear to see the contradiction of trying to institute a politically liberal democracy by force. The two are like oil and water and cannot possibly go better. The latter quotation of Meyerson is quite telling-When we use the gun barrel, we betray our liberal democratic values and instantly defeat our ultimate objective. It's a shame that no one sees the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" irrationality that is going to have us lose this war.

If that is the authors point, then I think Rumsfeld and company would do better to skip it and take a nap.

In fact, I'd say is high time Mr. Meyerson read a newspaper.

If he would be so kind as to do so, he would see that no one is "institutuing democracy by force" at all. Such of a thing would, of course, be doomed to failure.

Instead, the coalition is removing obstacles to democracy with force. Allowing the majority of Iraqis who themselves want democracy... to form one.

It is oppression and democracy that eventually cancel each other out, fortunately that is not the case in Iraq.

So, if it turns out that the Iraqis wanted a monarchy, we would give it to them? Did the United States ever give Iraqis the chance to form something other than a democracy?

You know I really don't know what would happen if that where the case. It is, after all, purely hypothetical. I imagine that as long as human rights were respected, there would not be a problem.

Good thing it's not something we have the worry about.
When polled, democracy is far and away the preferred system of government Iraqis, More than double any of the other choices.

Iraqis have a chance to choose their own government under a demcracy. That's kind of the point. If they want to vot in a monarchy, well then let them knock themselves out.

Imposed democracy is still WAY off the mark.

Thats a poll, not really what I'm asking for. I realize that in order to get an accurate, "what the people want," type of government you would have to start out with a democracy. However, when were the Iraqi people ever given a choice to decide what type of government was to ultimately be implemented? Was there a nation wide vote asking them whether or not they wanted a monarchy, democracy, republic, aristocracy, etc? When did the people of Iraq ask the United States for a democracy.


Its seems that the June 30th government is going to be in there quite a while, and not subject to the kind of changes that would allow a radically different type of government (Theistic monarchy, for example). Since no one knows what the governments going to look like, of course (Maybe because the "entity" that will hold the power is still be decided upon), I can't say that with complete accuracy. I just assume that it will look something like ours and that it won't be a temporary transition period.

All I'm saying is, we went in there with the intention of setting up a democracy. Maybe one that would give us a democratic foot hold in the middle east
(To solidify my case that the democracy was suppose to be there to stay):









I'm sure I can get more. Anyway, it seems like democracy is something that we had on our agenda. I doubt that the government will change (not with our commitment to democracy).

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East

A democratic vote to determine whether or not the Iraqis want democracy....
But what if they didn't want to choose a system of government using democracy?
After all who asked them if they wanted to be asked?

The point of the poll was that it sustantiates that Iraqis do indeed want a democracy, we didn't need a letter signed by every citizen of Iraq to know that. It doesn't really matter whther Iraqis actually asked for democracy, it is what they want, and therefore not imposed.


Since the interim government is just warming the seat until elections, I don't think that really matters... Major Iraqi political groups and parties will have a hand in the constitution. It will reflect the common will of their constituencies (ie. the Iraqi people).

Possibly, but that has much more to do with the will of Iraqis then with any of our plans. If Iraqis did not want democracy there would be no democracy. Ultimately, it is not under our control hence no imposition.

Whether or not we intended to help set up a democracy in the first place, we cannot make Iraqis go along with the program, it's up to them.

Thus me saying "I realize that in order to get an accurate, "what the people want," type of government you would have to start out with a democracy."


Actually, it answers the question as to whether the government put into Iraq is one that we want or one that they want. Seeing as how no one gave them power to decide what they wanted (polls don't equal power, they're opinions. They don't change anything politically), I would go ahead and say that the democracy in the beginning is our idea. Certainly, the Iraqis had no choice about this democracy.


Hmmm. I wonder why the US is so involved in creating the government. If we were really unconcerned about how the government was going to be run, why is it so heavily orchestrated by the US. Couldn't we have just had some preliminary votes (as I said, you'd have to start out as a democracy) and then let the Iraqis take it from there?



Our military is going to remain there in order to maintain stability. If the government takes a drastic 180 away from its intended purpose (democracy), I wouldn't be surprised if troops were withdrawn in order to make a point. It seems that the Iraqis are still in desperate need of our help; I doubt that they would do anything to aggravate us(like setting up a monarchy). In the end, they still have a choice, thus I agree that the nature of their government will not ultimately be imposed. But, if they want our help, they'll probably have to continue having a democracy.

Certainly, there dont seem to be too many Iraqis complaining about the imposition of a democracy. Whether or not it was because they chose a democracy or their wishes coincided with ours is a different matter, however.

I read this from an article comparing the Mongol invasion of Iraq to the US invasion. The entire article is really interesting but just an excerpt:


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/butler.php?articleid=2533

BTW Turnea, when you invade a nation to liberate them in order, in Bush's own words to bring democracy to Iraq, its definately an imposition. We didnt go in and capture Saddam Hussein then go home happy, we intended to set up a government in our own image, a US friendly one. When, what the US government 'wants' from/in Iraq begins to rub up against Islamic viewpoints in governing, one or the other is going to experience problems, and then what do you think we will we do?

Do you think for one minute the US is going to let Iraq go any other way than what WE want it to? Not a chance. That means fake democracy. I think Ultimate Joe posted on it previously, called 'low level democracy', which has little to do with what the people want.

You have touched on something here Artemise, that not very many people scratch below the surface of. That being, our form of "democracy" being abhorrent to the traditions and beliefs of the Iraqi people. When Ahmed opens up a liquor store or a porn store, people are not going to see that as being a product of democracy, but rather, chaos. You are very right in this regard, yet most people just ignore it and think that they are going to allow this stuff like we do. Drudgereport has been putting a newsday article on its front page the last three days of a poll that shows that Iraqis want democracy. I'd like to know what the answers would be if they were along the lines of: Would you tolerate a separation between church and state?; Do you think liquor stores and "adult entertainment" should be open to the public? An Islamic democracy is not a western democracy-and we fail to see the difference.

Ah, so this is the problem. Interesting...

Allow me to point something out, Iraqis never needed to the given the power to choose their own form of government. In the absence of large-scale political oppression, it is theirs by default.

What I mean to say is that, of course the Iraqis had a choice on whether or not to support democracy. If for any reason most Iraqis did not want a democracy, they could simply choose to not cooperate. Without the tacit support of Iraqis to the process of building the governement, it would simply collapse.

It is the coalition that lacks power in the process, they are at the mercy of Iraqi opinion.

Imposition of democracy is more than just an oxymoron, more than hypocritical. It is downright impossible, at least without some form of mind control...

No, I'm afraid not. In order for a democracy to work, a democratic infrastucture had to be set up. Laws to govern voting, systems of identification, voting facilities, etc.
Democracy is a mightily complicated thing on a national scale.

Note that even the UN admitted it could not comply with Sistani's wish to have national elections at this point.
Thus the need to set up a caretaker government was unavoidable.

An interesting assumption, but it is just that...

If Iraq is in desperate need of our help, then it stands to reason that a pullout would cause the kind of instability in the region that no country would like to be blamed for without something in return. Why do you think even the Democrats won't discuss a pull-out seriously?

I see were you can say there might be an imposition, but it's a pretty slim "might"

More assumptions...

It is a given that the form of democracy in Iraq will be different form ours. In polls they have already said they don't want our form of democracy. The coalition, through Bremer, has already accepted this.

Iraqis have voiced their support for making desicions through voting, and basic human rights. That is what is important.

What "Islamic viewpoints" are you worried will derail things and why are you so sure we will respond to such a derailment with force?

What, America never had prohibition?

The right to aquire alcohol is not essential to democracy.

There is no separation of church and state in the UK...
When asked whether or not everyone should be free to practice religion as they please, Iraqis overwhelmingly say YES!

So they have a different form of democracy....

I understood that, the coalition understands it, who's missing the point?

Well, America didn't have a parental government looking over is shoulder. It turned out pretty good. If the Iraqis are as comfortable with the workings of democracy as you suggest, I don't see why they couldn't figure out how to set up a suitable system. It's their government after all. Why can't they create laws to govern voting by themselves? We could help them create the actual voting facilities, but they are capable enough to figure out how to run them.

They know enough about democracy to do so, after all.

1. I think the differences in the two situation dictate that it was best for the coalition to set up a carekeeper government. After all, the nature of Saddam's regime was to eliminate any leaders that could unite the Iraqis. Sistani himself had to flee to Iran and only return after the war. The organizational chaos created in the aftermath of the war was enormous as well.

...and, of course, the insurgents would be working hard to kill any progress the coalition was best equipped to deal with that threat.

It is possible that the Iraqis could have worked quickly to set up order, but the fact is the coalition was far better prepared to do so. It wasn't the only way it could be done, but I believe it was the best.

Those who are actually drafting a constitution are, in fact, chosen by Iraqi leaders. Iraqis have the vast majority of the control over the political process.

Those who mistake this for some sort of puppet government, clearly aren't watching the situation too closely.

Prohibition lasted only a short time in America. Not only that, but it was passed for political reasons. Women's groups got the right to vote, Wilson gave them prohibition, and he got their votes. The general point is-nations that consist of largely muslim populations have stricter attitudes about what is permissable in society than ours. You have a bone to pick about that observation?The result being, a view of democracy(as we envision it anyways) as being atheistic, or even blasphemous to their traditions and beliefs. Separation of church and state? Reading the Qu'ran in schools and praying during class time? Yes, an "Islamic democracy" will take it's own shape. Ashape that will be easily whittled down as mullahs and clerics will emaciate it and work to undermine it, and will be rather successful at it. We can't force a democracy in Iraq because their form of government is just meant to be one that is autocratic or based on a loose confederate system.