Full Version: The government in Iraq
In another thread link
Aevans had this to say
The reality is that our gov't and liberal ideology will never allow our military to perform the necessary operations to prevent such attacks. As of right now, we're still preserving the personal liberties of the majority of Iraqi civilians, in a similar fashion to how we would here in the states. Unfortunately, most of the people in the US (and on AD) really don't have any idea of how detrimental this is to our mission. If people can come and go as they please, as long as we're not searching every nook and cranny, as long as we're not monitoring every financial transaction, we'll never be able to stop the attacks on our troops or secure elections, etc.
The questions for debate are:
Is this a compelling argument to say that the United States is going after the wrong goals presently in Iraq?
Do we need to create a stable authoritarian government without American-style civil liberties that has the power to root out subversive elements?
Will a strong temporary dictatorship with and active martial law system allow the United States to fulfill our mission better than our (and/or those of our Iraqi allies) present political and military policies do?
Aevans had this to say
QUOTE
The reality is that our gov't and liberal ideology will never allow our military to perform the necessary operations to prevent such attacks. As of right now, we're still preserving the personal liberties of the majority of Iraqi civilians, in a similar fashion to how we would here in the states. Unfortunately, most of the people in the US (and on AD) really don't have any idea of how detrimental this is to our mission. If people can come and go as they please, as long as we're not searching every nook and cranny, as long as we're not monitoring every financial transaction, we'll never be able to stop the attacks on our troops or secure elections, etc.
The questions for debate are:
Is this a compelling argument to say that the United States is going after the wrong goals presently in Iraq?
Do we need to create a stable authoritarian government without American-style civil liberties that has the power to root out subversive elements?
Will a strong temporary dictatorship with and active martial law system allow the United States to fulfill our mission better than our (and/or those of our Iraqi allies) present political and military policies do?
The problem with "temporary" dictatorships...is that they are dictatorships. We have tried that route in the past. As a matter of fact, Saddam himself may be seen as a product of such a policy.
Spreading democracy
Bush has rejected the strongman solution.
Would that solution have been easier in the short term? I think it would have.
Would it have been better in the long run for the future of Iraqis, I think we can answer that one with a resounding "NO".
Spreading democracy
QUOTE
And about Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq: We could have dealt with our security concerns in both places very differently, at considerably less cost in blood and treasure, simply by smashing the Taliban and the Saddam regime and installing local strongmen in their stead, each having been sternly warned by the example of the demise his predecessor of the consequences of future misbehavior, either with regard to harboring terrorists or looking guilty on illicit weapons programs. But we didn't do that. Instead, we committed ourselves — however fumblingly — to the establishment of decent, democratic government in both places. And by "we," I mean pre-eminently George W. Bush. He rejected (if he ever entertained) the strongman solution as inadequate.
Go back and read that Wall Street Journal quotation again. Mr. Bush gets a lot of grief for his supposed self-certainty (often attributed, usually disparagingly, to his religious beliefs). Yet what you see here, on the contrary, is a man who sees a "philosophical argument," which is to say, a contest with at least two sides. His presidency is "stimulating a debate" over the spread of democracy by trying to spread it. He is aware that there are those who say "Bush is wrong." He doesn't in turn say they are wrong. He says, "I assume I'm right" — which is to say, he will act in accordance with the conviction "that the philosophical argument of the age" will be resolved in favor of the spread of democracy.
That's because he thinks democracy is the right side to be on — not in the sense of the "right side of history," though he has his hopes, but in the sense that the promotion of democracy is morally right. Let those who disagree speak up.
Go back and read that Wall Street Journal quotation again. Mr. Bush gets a lot of grief for his supposed self-certainty (often attributed, usually disparagingly, to his religious beliefs). Yet what you see here, on the contrary, is a man who sees a "philosophical argument," which is to say, a contest with at least two sides. His presidency is "stimulating a debate" over the spread of democracy by trying to spread it. He is aware that there are those who say "Bush is wrong." He doesn't in turn say they are wrong. He says, "I assume I'm right" — which is to say, he will act in accordance with the conviction "that the philosophical argument of the age" will be resolved in favor of the spread of democracy.
That's because he thinks democracy is the right side to be on — not in the sense of the "right side of history," though he has his hopes, but in the sense that the promotion of democracy is morally right. Let those who disagree speak up.
Bush has rejected the strongman solution.
Would that solution have been easier in the short term? I think it would have.
Would it have been better in the long run for the future of Iraqis, I think we can answer that one with a resounding "NO".
QUOTE
The reality is that our gov't and liberal ideology will never allow our military to perform the necessary operations to prevent such attacks. As of right now, we're still preserving the personal liberties of the majority of Iraqi civilians, in a similar fashion to how we would here in the states. Unfortunately, most of the people in the US (and on AD) really don't have any idea of how detrimental this is to our mission. If people can come and go as they please, as long as we're not searching every nook and cranny, as long as we're not monitoring every financial transaction, we'll never be able to stop the attacks on our troops or secure elections, etc.
Aevans snippet here leads exactly to the same type of government as Saddams, and Mao's and Stalin's, etc............ Best way to ensure hatred of our troops and build resistance.
Is this a compelling argument to say that the United States is going after the wrong goals presently in Iraq?
Do we need to create a stable authoritarian government without American-style civil liberties that has the power to root out subversive elements?
Will a strong temporary dictatorship with and active martial law system allow the United States to fulfill our mission better than our (and/or those of our Iraqi allies) present political and military policies do?
Either the people of Iraq and the middle east will embrace democracy in whatever form best suits them--or they will just have to continue to live under the heel of tyrants and make the most of it. You have to want to be free.
QUOTE(christopher @ Jan 19 2005, 03:53 PM)
Either the people of Iraq and the middle east will embrace democracy in whatever form best suits them--or they will just have to continue to live under the heel of tyrants and make the most of it. You have to want to be free.
This form of orientalism is really common, and it definately bugs me. People living in other countries are not stupid. They want to be free as much as we do. They might have a culture which hinders the development of democracy, but there is no reason that democracy should be impossible there. There are examples thoughout history of people saying that democracy cannot work in a given country, and they have gone on to prove the critics wrong. All Iraqis want freedom. Sure, many who benefited from the old regime resent the change, but that doesn't mean they don't want freedom - maybe not freedom for others, but for themselves. Sure, there are many who resent American occupation, but this is because of historically- and culturally-based resentment of Americans. These people do not have anything wrong with freedom. Finally, many Iraqis fully welcome us, because we have done what they tried to do before - get rid of thier dictator. Everyone one wants to be free.
QUOTE(catquas @ Jan 20 2005, 06:27 AM)
This form of orientalism is really common, and it definately bugs me. People living in other countries are not stupid. They want to be free as much as we do. They might have a culture which hinders the development of democracy, but there is no reason that democracy should be impossible there. There are examples thoughout history of people saying that democracy cannot work in a given country, and they have gone on to prove the critics wrong. All Iraqis want freedom. Sure, many who benefited from the old regime resent the change, but that doesn't mean they don't want freedom - maybe not freedom for others, but for themselves. Sure, there are many who resent American occupation, but this is because of historically- and culturally-based resentment of Americans. These people do not have anything wrong with freedom. Finally, many Iraqis fully welcome us, because we have done what they tried to do before - get rid of thier dictator. Everyone one wants to be free.
You're right, of course. However, people want to be free to organise their lives and societies the way they want to organise them, and not the way that someone else thinks they should. I think that the stumbling block here is that the US seems to have a definition of "freedom" that precludes the setting up of, say, an Islamic state, which is what many of the people of Iraq want.
This is a wider point in the USA's view of the world, too. Other people around the world are willing to organise themselves differently, particularly in economics and the role of the state. America does everything it can to exert influence, through bodies like the World Bank (a UN institution that the USA seems perfectly happy with, because it largely does America's bidding?), to make other countries adopt the same kind of laissez faire capitalism that America itself excels in.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that - it's to America's advantage to so do. But the public positioning is all about how that is just the best way to be, how being like America is for people's own good. Not only is this deeply patronising, it makes (ignorant) assumptions about what systems and institutions might suit other people. There is more than one form of democracy and capitalism. The American forms suit America, but they may not suit everybody else.
QUOTE
Is this a compelling argument to say that the United States is going after the wrong goals presently in Iraq?
Regarding the aevans quote you cited, I believe it to be insightful and correct.
QUOTE
Do we need to create a stable authoritarian government without American-style civil liberties that has the power to root out subversive elements?
Aside from the stability factor, isn't that what the Iraqis have right now? Is it working? I don't think so. And the more we try to clamp down using an Iraqi interim government that meets with our approval, the more the insurgency will react with violence. They don't want anything that smacks of American influence.
QUOTE
Will a strong temporary dictatorship with and active martial law system allow the United States to fulfill our mission better than our (and/or those of our Iraqi allies) present political and military policies do?
We created this problem. We interfered because of whatever reason you want to use from Bush's long list of rationalizations, but it was interference just the same. The best way for Saddam Hussein's regime to be toppled would have been for the Iraqis themselves, without the United States, to organize and depose him. That would have brought lasting change.
(Remember the guy appointed to be judge at Saddam Hussein's trial and how he was later shown to be corrupt? He had our backing, so did his dad who gave the U.S. false information. We sin in haste, and repent at leisure, I guess.)
And please, do not bring up the "Don't you think that Saddam Hussein is evil and he should have been vanquished" argument. Nobody, not even Lefties, think he's a nice guy. But it is essentially irrelevant because if the Iraqis were not strong enough to depose him themselves, it was because they lacked the will to do so. It has been demonstrated that in Islam there are people willing to strap explosives on themselves to take out innocent people for a cause. The Iraqis lacked the will to organize and take care of this guy themselves. Who were we to decide to do it ostensibly for them?
This whole theocracy issue is too bogus for words.
First off, what moron WOULDN'T want freedom? Of course everybody wants freedom - the Iraqi's don't hold a patent on that.
But my bet is, there are over a billion people in China that would love democracy. If a billion people rose up and wanted democracy, don't you think they could have it?
The simple answer is, they don't care. They are as resistant to change as your average American. As long as their lives aren't in turmoil, they could really care less. They don't miss what they've never had.
And the same with Iraqis. It's not like Saddam pulled innocents randomly out of their houses and executed them. Most Iraqi's lives were just fine. If you rose up against Saddam however, it was game-over. If you sided with Iranians (like the Kurds did), you put yourself in an ugly war.
But what blows me away about this entire discussion is something that has never been resolved and nobody is asking the right question:
Before the war started, Bush went on TV and gave Saddam one last chance to disarm. He stated on national TV - right in our faces - that if Saddam disarmed, he would avoid the imminent war.
So, let's say for the sake of argument that we believed the evidence provided to us and the UN (and what we found out to be later, far, FAR more accurate than our assesments. His 12,000 page dossier proved to be the truth even though there were some discrepencies). Let's say we looked at the dossier and said, yup...he disarmed.
Would we have went to war? Bush told us and the world that Saddam could avoid war by disarming. Now, we're all about spreading democracy since that's the last card left. But we can only spread it in places that can't defend themselves.
And now, it's ALL about spreading democracy. The talk of WMD threats ended with a war that had nothing to do with them.
We can shove democracy down anybody's throat. Making it work in factional countries is an entirely different matter. Democracy can work. Whether it can work in a country not willing to fight for it themselves (like we did) is an entirely different matter. Nobody knows and it's the biggest social experiment known to mankind.
First off, what moron WOULDN'T want freedom? Of course everybody wants freedom - the Iraqi's don't hold a patent on that.
But my bet is, there are over a billion people in China that would love democracy. If a billion people rose up and wanted democracy, don't you think they could have it?
The simple answer is, they don't care. They are as resistant to change as your average American. As long as their lives aren't in turmoil, they could really care less. They don't miss what they've never had.
And the same with Iraqis. It's not like Saddam pulled innocents randomly out of their houses and executed them. Most Iraqi's lives were just fine. If you rose up against Saddam however, it was game-over. If you sided with Iranians (like the Kurds did), you put yourself in an ugly war.
But what blows me away about this entire discussion is something that has never been resolved and nobody is asking the right question:
Before the war started, Bush went on TV and gave Saddam one last chance to disarm. He stated on national TV - right in our faces - that if Saddam disarmed, he would avoid the imminent war.
So, let's say for the sake of argument that we believed the evidence provided to us and the UN (and what we found out to be later, far, FAR more accurate than our assesments. His 12,000 page dossier proved to be the truth even though there were some discrepencies). Let's say we looked at the dossier and said, yup...he disarmed.
Would we have went to war? Bush told us and the world that Saddam could avoid war by disarming. Now, we're all about spreading democracy since that's the last card left. But we can only spread it in places that can't defend themselves.
And now, it's ALL about spreading democracy. The talk of WMD threats ended with a war that had nothing to do with them.
We can shove democracy down anybody's throat. Making it work in factional countries is an entirely different matter. Democracy can work. Whether it can work in a country not willing to fight for it themselves (like we did) is an entirely different matter. Nobody knows and it's the biggest social experiment known to mankind.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jan 20 2005, 07:37 AM)
But my bet is, there are over a billion people in China that would love democracy. If a billion people rose up and wanted democracy, don't you think they could have it?
The simple answer is, they don't care. They are as resistant to change as your average American. As long as their lives aren't in turmoil, they could really care less. They don't miss what they've never had.
And the same with Iraqis. It's not like Saddam pulled innocents randomly out of their houses and executed them. Most Iraqi's lives were just fine. If you rose up against Saddam however, it was game-over. If you sided with Iranians (like the Kurds did), you put yourself in an ugly war.
How, exactly, do you know what it was like under Saddam? From what I've read, summary executions were not uncommon, and people were seized rather randomly. Regardless, there is an element of fear surrounding a society under a strong authoritarian government. Revolution leads to vast bloodshed, which many (especially with families) would like to avoid at almost any cost. A person might want freedom and democracy as badly as a fat American sitting at his/her computer screen but not at the price of seeing all of their children dead.The simple answer is, they don't care. They are as resistant to change as your average American. As long as their lives aren't in turmoil, they could really care less. They don't miss what they've never had.
And the same with Iraqis. It's not like Saddam pulled innocents randomly out of their houses and executed them. Most Iraqi's lives were just fine. If you rose up against Saddam however, it was game-over. If you sided with Iranians (like the Kurds did), you put yourself in an ugly war.
Democracy and capitalism, BTW, are taking slow hold in China. Things seem to have changed for the better since the Tiananmen Square massacre. None of those changes can happen (peacefully) overnight.
Regarding the question to be debated....we should not establish a dictatorship in Iraq. Obviously, it would contradict everything we stand for as Americans. We would be dicrediting ourselves, eliminating the Iraqi interim Constitution which was agreed upon, and etablishing the first American colony. We've seen worse than this, and never done so in the past.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 20 2005, 09:27 AM)
Regarding the question to be debated....we should not establish a dictatorship in Iraq. Obviously, it would contradict everything we stand for as Americans. We would be dicrediting ourselves, eliminating the Iraqi interim Constitution which was agreed upon, and etablishing the first American colony. We've seen worse than this, and never done so in the past.
Actually establishing a temporary dictatorship is just what we did at the end of World War II. The military government imposed upon Japan and Germany was every bit the dictatorship that is being debated. The outcome of both was in fact two democracies put in place over the objections of the citizens, in direct opposition to their cultures and histories by American troops.So to say that we have never done so in the past is incorrect.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 20 2005, 05:39 AM)
You're right, of course. However, people want to be free to organise their lives and societies the way they want to organise them, and not the way that someone else thinks they should. I think that the stumbling block here is that the US seems to have a definition of "freedom" that precludes the setting up of, say, an Islamic state, which is what many of the people of Iraq want.
I would have to disagree. I think many Sunnis want a Sunni state, and the Siites want a Shiite state, but that is not the same thing. An Islamic government wouldn't work in Iraq because it really is pretty impossible to have a theocracy which isn't baised to a particular view of the religion. And of course, most Kurds seem to like democracy pretty well.
QUOTE
This is a wider point in the USA's view of the world, too. Other people around the world are willing to organise themselves differently, particularly in economics and the role of the state. America does everything it can to exert influence, through bodies like the World Bank (a UN institution that the USA seems perfectly happy with, because it largely does America's bidding?), to make other countries adopt the same kind of laissez faire capitalism that America itself excels in. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that - it's to America's advantage to so do. But the public positioning is all about how that is just the best way to be, how being like America is for people's own good. Not only is this deeply patronising, it makes (ignorant) assumptions about what systems and institutions might suit other people. There is more than one form of democracy and capitalism. The American forms suit America, but they may not suit everybody else.
Well I think that if we are really sure that a system of government or economics will work much better in a given country, we should pressure them to adopt it. But I don't think that this is laissez faire capitalism, and I don't even think it is the same system for every country. Statist economics work better in developing countries, but not in developed ones. And different forms of statism work in different developing countries. It is the same deal with democracy. But that doesn't mean there isn't a best system for each country. If we see a country heavily messing up, then we should influence them to change their system.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jan 20 2005, 10:37 AM)
And the same with Iraqis. It's not like Saddam pulled innocents randomly out of their houses and executed them. Most Iraqi's lives were just fine. If you rose up against Saddam however, it was game-over. If you sided with Iranians (like the Kurds did), you put yourself in an ugly war.
Not so, Saddam completely mismanaged the country. His wars were extremely costly to the country, and he squandered the oil profits for himself. Not to say he didn't have social programs, but nothing compared to what could have been done.
QUOTE
We can shove democracy down anybody's throat. Making it work in factional countries is an entirely different matter. Democracy can work. Whether it can work in a country not willing to fight for it themselves (like we did) is an entirely different matter. Nobody knows and it's the biggest social experiment known to mankind.
Actually after the Gulf war Iraqis tried and failed to fight Saddam and get freedom. They were not well-armed enough.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 20 2005, 09:37 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 20 2005, 09:27 AM)
Regarding the question to be debated....we should not establish a dictatorship in Iraq. Obviously, it would contradict everything we stand for as Americans. We would be dicrediting ourselves, eliminating the Iraqi interim Constitution which was agreed upon, and etablishing the first American colony. We've seen worse than this, and never done so in the past.
Actually establishing a temporary dictatorship is just what we did at the end of World War II. The military government imposed upon Japan and Germany was every bit the dictatorship that is being debated. The outcome of both was in fact two democracies put in place over the objections of the citizens, in direct opposition to their cultures and histories by American troops.So to say that we have never done so in the past is incorrect.
Perhaps I stand corrected. I was under the impression that our occupying forces in Iraq DID install martial law temporarily, along with curfews and temporary suspension of certain civil liberties...similar to Germany. We never, to my knowledge, appointed a dictator anywhere.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 20 2005, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 20 2005, 09:37 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 20 2005, 09:27 AM)
Regarding the question to be debated....we should not establish a dictatorship in Iraq. Obviously, it would contradict everything we stand for as Americans. We would be dicrediting ourselves, eliminating the Iraqi interim Constitution which was agreed upon, and etablishing the first American colony. We've seen worse than this, and never done so in the past.
Actually establishing a temporary dictatorship is just what we did at the end of World War II. The military government imposed upon Japan and Germany was every bit the dictatorship that is being debated. The outcome of both was in fact two democracies put in place over the objections of the citizens, in direct opposition to their cultures and histories by American troops.So to say that we have never done so in the past is incorrect.
Perhaps I stand corrected. I was under the impression that our occupying forces in Iraq DID install martial law temporarily, along with curfews and temporary suspension of certain civil liberties...similar to Germany. We never, to my knowledge, appointed a dictator anywhere.
I believe that you are partially correct though in your overall comments. Was not trying to nitpick.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.