I think the tough and pertinent question is what happens after the war?

War with Iraq seems almost inevitable. But with economic woes at home, are we going to really invest in what it would take to build Iraq up again as a democratic nation? Will we spend the money, or will we drop it once Saddam is gone?

Further, are we really going to promote a democracy in Iraq? Can we trust that after 2 wars and crushing economic sanctions the Iraqi people who form a government of concensus will be pro-American in any way?

We don't have a good track record at all when it comes to promoting democracy. In fact, more totalitarian-type regimes seem to make better trading "partners." In so far as the so called "free" trade advocates think, anyway.

It seems likely to me that what will happen is another strong autocrat will come to power, but one who is decidedly friendly to global corporatists. If I am wrong, I will beg forgiveness from those who disagree.

But here is my question specifically: What post-war plan do you see in Iraq? What would you implement there?

Installing a new regime in Iraq will be very difficult, especially considering the amount of ethnic strife that exists in the country. I'm sure that the Iraqis are not going to welcome the Americans with open arms, and I think you're probably on target as far as the face of the new regime is concerned.

I wonder what they will do with Kurdistan.

We already shot ourselves in the foot with 'Kurdistan'.
After the gulf war, we promised that if the Kurds in the north rebelled and marched against the Baghdad regime, we would be there 100% to assist with air support, logistics, etc...

Well, the Kurds put 10,000 men into the field, and guess what, they were slaughtered.

Just like Hungary, just like the Bay of Pigs.

I agree with quarkhead, I wouldn't trust our intentions either.

I'm still having doubts that war with Iraq will actually happen. I'll believe it when it does happen, however. After the war? The planning is going on now, and I've seen rumors that the oil is getting split up among major players in that field. I suppose that will definately happen.

Then we can all feel safe again

Well, this thread, of course, is all about speculation, but we can take certain elements from the past and project them onto the present. I imagine that they will definitely be trying to push the idea of free elections in the future after stability is achieved through an interim government. I just don't know if they'll actually make it to that point, not because I think that the U.S. will intentionally sabotage it, but because there are so many factions within Iraq and other parts of the middle east that may sabotage it first.

I'd like to see a Democracy formed (obviously) and pray to God that the Kurds don't go psycho & try to tick off Turkey

The Economic situation in Iraq will improve VERY HUGE. With the sanctions lifted after Saddam is secure in THE HAGUE, trading with Iraq will increase dramatically

Defectors & exiles will be able to return home & see their family (if they survive Saddam's crap)

And the World will be rid of another psycho!

God Bless America!

With the ethnic diversity and tribal behavior I find it hard to see any positive outcome. It would seem as though (to this ignorant American) a country like this can be kept together only with an Iron fist... or broken into several different countries.

I really hope we don't have to wage war on Iraq.

me too

but if Saddam wants exile, that's cool with me...as long as he gives all of his riches to the Iraqi people & not keep it

But that's doubtful

IF, and I do mean IF, we go to war and win, here is what I would like to see happen

1) Remove Saddam
2) Remove all WMD
3) Assist in the security ONLY of the interim gov't. Let the Iraqi's put the gov't together
4) After new gov't is installed, get the heck out.

I have no desire for a lasting presence in Iraq. Nor do I desire war in the first place

--cheers

DP: For a change, I actually agree with you. Imagine that.

I don't pretend to know what intelligence, if any, our government possesses about Iraq, but if we do have to go in, we need to make it as short and sweet as possible.

All this bull about going in and splitting up the Iraqi's oil supply amongst the allies sounds like a bunch of imperialistic garbage. It suggests that not only will our military be there for the long term, but that we plan to steal that country's only real source of income. We have no right to take ANY of that oil... It belongs to the Iraqi people.

I also agree, except I have trouble imagining what will happen if we do that. What happens once we leave? Not from a point of view of responsibility, or to forward democracy, rather: if we DON'T stay and set up a democratic government, and stay long enough for the kinks to get worked out, would we just be asking for another autocrat to step in? I think we have an obligation, if not to furthering human rights, then at the least to long-term strategy in the region, which would imply a government we can work with. What scares me is it will be cheaper to replace Hussein with another thug (remember, he was OUR thug for quite a long time) than it will be to do any democratic nation-building.

Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but we do have a bad track record for enjoying the expediency of doing business with thugs!

Stefan Fargus

I've taken a screenshot of your post, and will hang it on my wall. Lord knows this is probably a once-in-a-lifetime kinda thing lol

To add to that. I agree about the splitting up of Iraqi oil between the allies. Very imperialistic *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. I hope its just a rumor that proves to be untrue.

Quark: I have a feeling that the Iraqi people would not be dumb enough to set up another dictatorship, right after Saddam. I think they are smart enough to realize that it doesn't work.

The gov't in afganistan is made up of parts of each tribe, or whatever you call them. To my knowledge, it isn't a democracy, but at least the ruthless Taliban aren't running the show.

Anything but a dictator will be a huge step forward....

--cheers

ME TOO!! Weird stuff

Maybe after we "get the heck out" as DP put it, the saudis won't have to worry about our American Servicewomen walking off base without a veil

DP wrote:


I agree in theory, but did the Iraqi people really have much choice about Hussein? I am afraid that the cultural infrastructure of Iraq is autocratic, and that if democracy is not helped along with outside assistance, a military junta or another petty dictator will take over.

I guess my question is: Do we have any obligations to the nation of Iraq, assuming we go in, make war, and oust Saddam? Or if not an obligation per se, is democracy there a goal, regardless of the nation-building involved?

I am against war, however, if we do it, I really hope we don't allow another "mini-Saddam" to take his place. That's the kind of mistake that got us where we are now.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Our history of developing democracies is stellar, outstanding. Let's see, Germany, Japan after World War II, both were basically US puppet states for a decade after the war. Today those two countries are both democracies, and both in the top 5 in GNP.

And to Heatherrob's list I would add a couple that we helped set up and/or saved and/or helped reconsitute themselves:

The Phillipines
France
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
UK
Italy
Austria
Sweden
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Russia (yes, we helped there too)
Ukraine
South Korea
Several South Sea Islands
Israel


Now, it is true that some of these are not as democratic as we would like, but they have at least taken steps in that direction. And, some of them we helped save in the second WW.

ok - back to the topic.....Though the Iraqi people have no history of democracy they are intelligent and hard working, maybe after Saddam they will be ready to put in the effort that democracy takes. Russia never had a democratic history either, but they are slowly taking steps in that direction (sometimes two steps forward and one back), but nevertheless on the path.

I would really like to see the other Arabic countries persuade Saddam to leave (make him a deal he can't refuse ) and then we go in and clean the place up from WMD's and using their oil profits and some of our expertise help heal the infrastructure, and help them set up a government that will truly benefit the people.

Basheva, heatherrob, don't get me wrong - I hope that, if we do go to war with Iraq, and we do oust Hussein, we help set up a democratic government. I truly do hope that we do.

What I fear, however, is that with people complaining about the domestic economy, we will end up settling for what is expedient with Iraq. I can see us flinching at the cost of real nation-building, comparable to Germany or Japan.

We can argue over your lists of countries, but that would be for another thread. My thought was really predicated on the idea that we don't need Iraq to be democratic in order to deal favorably with them in the global arena. We could easily settle for less than a representative government, and the truth is that the really large transnational corporations would probably find it easier in many ways to do very profitable business with a more autocratic government.

Also, in the eighties, it was generally accepted policy that Saddam Hussein's iron grip on Iraq was seen as an important buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is evidence that the Saudis did not want to oust Saddam Hussein during the gulf war, again, to buffer against Iran. It was thought that if Hussein's secular dictatorship were to fall, Iraq would too easily be swallowed up by Iran, which would then pose a huge threat to Saudi Arabia. This is something we need to think about particularly since Iran is now part of the "axis of evil."

Quarkhead - I think you make many good points. I see two obstacles to democracy for a country like Iraq. You have aptly explained the outer one, perhaps I could expand on the inner one.

People in that region of the world not only have no history of democracy, no concept of self-imposed governance (governance has always been imposed by someone else), but they don't see themselves truly as a country - as one unit. As, well, I can't resist - E Pluribus Unum.

They see themselves as tribal units rather than as a single nation. It takes a certain degree of sophistication (for want of a better word) to feel included in the larger picture which being part of a national unit (rather than a tribal unit) entails.

It is just such a lack of national view, which allowed Saddam to violate his own people, which he took to the extreme of mass gas poisoning the Kurdish population. He didn't see these people as 'his' - he saw them as 'different,' as well as a threat. One can cite examples of this even in our own country - like the internment of the Japanese. But we have tried to learn from our mistakes. Saddam doesn't even see his actions as a mistake. And, I think his mindset is an example - an extreme example - of how people in those areas define themselves, by tribe rather than by nation.

Some, me included, would argue that just such a tendency to divide rather than unite exists in this country only it is called multi-culturalism. But that's for another thread....

Anyway, I don't think it will be so much how the rest of the world wishes Iraq to be governed (i.e. Saudi Arabia, or large corporations), I think it will ulltimately be how and if the Iraqi people are able to come together as a nation.