We invaded Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from using his WMD on us. When we discovered that he had no WMD, we realized our error and decided that we had actually invaded Iraq in order to establish democracy in that benighted country. So we set up a democracy and last January elections were held. Conservatives reveled in their I-told-you-so’s to skeptics. Democracy had triumphed.

Except for the fact that one election does not a democracy make. So I decide to sit down and analyze the factors that might affect successful democratization of Iraq.

I began by compiling a list of all the countries of the world. Then I threw out the 100+ countries that are little more than stumpers in twisted geography tests: you know, countries such as Burkina Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and San Marino. That left me with 116 countries.

Next, I obtained the Freedom House political rights and civil liberties indeces for these countries. These are pairs of numbers that estimate the degree of democratization in various countries all over the world. Such measurements have been around since the 70s, and the methodology behind them is no longer controversial. Each value runs from 1 (pure, clean democracy) to 7 (unmitigated tyranny). The two values can be averaged together to obtain a fairly good estimate of the overall “democracy-ness” of a country.

The average “democracy-ness” of all 116 countries came out to 3.50, with a sample standard deviation of about 2.07.

The next step was to come up with five simple boolean traits that characterize the body politic of a nation. These five traits, and the definitions I used for the purposes of this study, are as follows:

1. Muslim majority. Is a majority of the population Muslim?
2. Linguistic polarization: are linguistic differences intense enough to underlie a significant degree of political conflict?
3. Ethnic polarization: are ethnic differences intense enough to underlie a significant degree of political conflict?
4. Sectarian polarization: are sectarian differences intense enough to underlie a significant degree of political conflict?
5. Tribal polarization: are tribal differences intense enough to underlie a significant degree of political conflict?

I then gathered together all the countries that met condition #1. Their average “democracy-ness”value came to 5.4 plus or minus 1.18. That’s a huge difference from the world average of 3.5. This strongly suggests that Muslim countries are very undemocratic.

Next came condition #2: Linguistic polarization. It had an average of 3.6 plus or minus 2.12. That’s not a significant difference from the world average.

Then I calculated the results for condition #3: Ethnic polarization. The result, 3.55 plus or minus 1.47, isn’t significantly different from the world average.

But when I calculated the results for condition #4 (Sectarian polarization), I obtained an average of 4.33 plus or minus 1.97. That’s a significant difference, but not a huge one. Apparently sectarian differences do hinder democratization.

Lastly, condition #5 (Tribal polarization) yielded a whopping 5.41 plus or minus 1.39. That’s a serious difference. Countries with serious tribal polarization aren’t very democratic.

So now let’s apply these results to Iraq. Iraq meets all five conditions. Applying the results from the previous tests suggests that Iraq should naturally gravitate towards a value of about 5.4 or perhaps slightly lower. That’s about the same value as we find in such pillars of democracy as Egypt, Russia, Rwanda, and Tunisia.

In other words, all this talk about a free and democratic Iraq is nonsense. This little analysis of mine has plenty of flaws, to be sure, but it demonstrates just how difficult it will be to establish a democracy in such a nation.

Questions for debate:
Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?

What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?

Your study (and neato! by the way not a bad angle on this ) does nothing more than establish a couple of pretty clear correlations. I would go further and agree with the proposed casual relationship. Sectarian conflict, religious fundamentalism and the like do often function as barriers to democratic institutions.

In any case that is not sufficient to support the following statement.


These barriers are not impassible and so he prospects of success are not as you put it, 'nonsense".
Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?
Coupled with the efforts by Iraqis who are really those chiefly responsible, yes quite likely.

Those against democracy in iraq are hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. they can cause damage... but the political development cannot be stalled by such violence.

What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?
A functioning democracy, albeit not with all the protections we have in the US. Religious authorities will have more power than I would like over fellow muslims. However basic freedoms such as religious choice, press, etc. will be well established.

It is the will of he people, and for the first time the people have a way to make their will a reality.

I'd like to address your question for debate in a thoughtful manner, but it begins badly with a false premise. We did not attack Iraq out of fear that Saddam would "use his WMD on us". That is not true. We attacked Saddam because he had repeatedly refused to abide by the terms of the cease fire (after the gulf war) and the UN resolutions associated with that surrender and was believed (by nearly ALL western governments) to be pursuing a program of WMD's which, it was feared, he would make available to terrorist organizations intent on a 9/11 style attack. Also, at multiple decisions points along the march to this current war, Saddam was given ample opportunity to defuse the situation by allowing free and open inspections of his country.... which he thwarted at every sense thus behaving EXACTLY like a guilty person and solidifying the belief of the US (and most of the world) that he had something to hide.

Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will result in a functional democracy? Yes.

What will we see in 20 years? A democracy. In fact, we'll see that in 2005 and a "functional democracy" before the end of Bush's term. Sure, one election doesn't make a democracy. That was true in the USA also. But Bush will be in office until 2009 which precludes the possibility of a future spineless president from being elected until then who would rather run than stand on principle. That fact will keep this process on track.

The next place to experience democracy (in spite of the left promising that it will never happen) will be Iran. And that country is the big enchilada in this big war on terror.

You're right, my claim was overstated, as the evidence casts doubt but does not disprove. Perhaps a better wording would be "all this talk about a free and democratic Iraq is questionable." Besides, we all know it would be Republican, not Democratic.


I don't see the obstacles arising primarily from the insurgents (although they do seem to be growing in terms of the number of people killed per week.) My concern is that the Iraqi body politic doesn't have any real democrats in it. These people don't fully understand the concepts of the rule of law that underlie democracy. They still look to their tribal or religious leaders for justice.


Actually, it's not the first time. During the wave of decolonialization, the departing Western powers all made sure that there were free and fair elections for new governments. In the first months after the restoration of sovereignty, these countries really did have something like a functioning democracy. But then they reverted to the tryrranical forms of government that now oppress them. Now fast forward fifty years and we have the exact same story: a Western government setting up free and fair elections prior to departure. What is about Iraq that will work this time when it didn't work the last time?

Can you offer any substantiation for your position? Is there any basis for your claims? I have offered evidence that indicates -- not proves, but indicates -- that democracy in Iraq is unlikely. Can you offer any evidence that it is likely?

added a moment later: Oops! I forgot that I had already made a posting here, and have inadvertently violated the rule against multiple sequential postings. Apologies to all.

I'm not sure I understand your question. You asked for an opinion and I gave it. I don't have the ability (nor do you) for seeing into the future. If I did, I assure you that I would be the richest person on the planet and wouldn't be posting in here.

With respect to substantiation of my position, I reaffirm that I believe my opinion. I don't think a notary is possible in an internet forum, nor is my signature so this post will have to do.

Lordhelmet you’ve totally confused me. First, you predict that there will be “functional democracy” in Iraq “before the end of Bush’s term” then you declare you can’t see into the future. There seems to be a contradiction here or is it that there’s an intermittency in the crystal ball?

I tend to agree with Erasmussimo, but would strongly suggest that we’re going to have to wait about 25 years for historians to give us a definitive account of Iraq and, for that matter, the Bush presidency.

I don't understand your point. A "prediction" is a guess based upon what you believe will happen. It's not "proof" or 100% certain.

That's what was asked for in this thread. I gave you my opinion. And, I'm sure I'll be closer to the reality. Why? Because I said so.

Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?
I believe our efforts can only yield (assuming the result is possible) a stable climate for politics. For any hope of democracy to succeed, the daily suicide bombings must stop or decline to the level of noise on the geo-political landscape. Absent this eventuality, no democracy would survive.

What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?

The direction that the current democracy can take has a number of roads, most of them less democratic than the current state. The pillar of both major factions in Iraq is Islam. The irony of that note is that Islam in its purest form contains some highly democratic principles within it. The problem lies in its current application for both the Sunni and Shia sects. Add the Wahabi faction (more predominant in Saudi Arabia, admittedly) and the likelyhood of Iraq staying away from a "Taliban-esque" outcome is unlikely. I am of course hopeful that outcome can be avoided, but sadly such theocratic outcomes in that corner of the world is far more the norm than otherwise.

The other unknown factor is what role Iran will play. They certainly have the ability to influence the outcome in Iraq due to the religious ties to the majority party.

I would add a 4th outcome to your list, a theocratic regime closely resembling Saudi Arabia or worse, Iran. Sadly this seems more likely given the region's history than a burgeoning democratic state. I am ever hopeful, but realistic given current conditions.

Doc

Very well, LordHelmet, you are asking us to take your comments as nothing more than your own personal opinion, completely unsupported by any evidence. I think that we can all accept your contribution on that basis and give it the weight it obviously deserves.

I very much hope that others will be able to provide us with something we can chew on, even if it proves fatal to my claims. Better to be bowled over by a fact than bored by an opinion.

I still don't understand where you are coming from on this one. Perhaps you can help me understand your thought process here?

The question was for posters to give their opinion on what would happen. I did. Twice.

This discussion reminds me of a scene from "Back to School" where the Rodney Dangerfield character derides his staff working on his term paper (after he picks it up and weighs it) that "It feels like a C, add more weight".

Adding more irrelevant filler and fluff to my post (in other words, the "predictions" of others just like me) doesn't do anything more to justify my prediction than it does to justify your own.

The validity of one's views is not measured by the number of quotes, footnotes, and references of others (who also cannot see the future) in order to add more "weight" to one's "term paper". Of course color graphs in PowerPoint add irrational weight to a presentation too.... a fact I exploit all the time. But, I digress...

History measures validity. And I would suggest that your view and mine, at this point in time, have exactly the same validity. Yet, in time, one will be proven to be correct and the other full of beans. We'll just have to wait to find out who was right.

Of course; I'm sorry if I was unclear. Rationalists like to use a technique that they call "reasoned discussion." In this technique, two or more parties compare their thinking on some "issue" of interest. Each party offers his own "assessment" of the issue, and they determine points on which the two assessments differ. Each party then provides "evidence" and "logic" to explain the basis on which he arrived at his assessment. The evidence can take the form of historical information, statistical data, common knowledge, expert opinion, scientific results, or any other reliable source of information. The various pieces of evidence are connected into a sequence by means of logic. If done properly, the logical sequence leads to a valid and correct conclusion. The two parties compare their different pieces of evidence, the validity of their logical combinations of that evidence, and arrive at a joint conclusion regarding the issue.

This "reasoned discussion" is what I seek here at AD in general and in this topic in particular.

Does that clarify the matter for you?

I can't provide anything which proves "fatal to your claims", but your analysis is based primarily on precedent. Four of your five traits were true of Switzerland at one time. Yes, democracy within Muslim nations is not currently the norm. Up until a few decades ago indoor plumbing wasn't the norm within most Muslim countries with your other associated statistics. That (obviously) did not indicate that indoor plumbing would forever elude them.

I don't expect a booming democracy within the next twenty years in Iraq...but I am hopeful.

I'm sorry but it doesn't. Again, your premise is where your argument falls apart. As demonstrated in the Dangerfield movie (albeit in a humorous way), adding more "weight" to a false premise doesn't make it more true. Neither does adding more footnotes to a "prediction". I know that economists, business management and other liars have made careers out of pretending to be able to see the future by presenting long, draw out, wordy, and lengthly dissertations, full of footnotes, references, and cites, fancy powerpoint presentations, prospectus, etc., that actually convince other humans that they can see into the future.... but they cannot. They can't, I can't, and YOU can't.

Again, the question was related to what one thinks would happen in the future. As much as it must certainly pain you, my concise appraisal is every much as valid as your drawn-out thesis. That's the only rational conclusion. And with that, my participation in this thread has certainly reached the end of its shelf life.

Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?

In my estimation, it's not likely given the regions long history of bloody sect and tribal fighting, religious repression and authoritarian rule. What context do they have to draw from for democratic rule? How long would/will a democracy survive without American troops there to enforce it?



What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?


If I had to hazard a guess as to the state of Iraqi politics in 20 years, it will depend largely on whether we have fully withdrawn or not. If we HAVE withdrawn fully by then, I suspect the country could go in one of two directions. Given that the majority sect shares a common religious philosophy with Iran, I could easily see a larger threat coming from an Iran/Iraq alliance. Conversely The country could also end up in the midst of a bloody ethnic/religious sect war. In either case I don't foresee any democracy surviving there without US troops to keep the peace.

Actually, no. Please note the careful wording of the latter four traits: I qualify each trait with the proviso that it must be "intense enough to underlie a significant degree of political conflict". That precludes their application to Switzerland, where there are linguistic differences, but they are not the source of significant political conflict. The same thing applies to the other traits.


Installing indoor plumbing requires nothing more than some pipe and a plumber. Installing democracy is a vastly more difficult project. I think your analogy breaks down over that difference.


I too am hopeful that the Iraqis will beat the odds. But I will not allow hope to trump reason.


It's good to see that you are now providing evidence to support your claims, although the reputability of a Rodney Dangerfield movie as a source of evidence does leave something to be desired.


Indeed: Why bother trying to figure out what the future might bring us when we can just rely on our own hunches? What's the point of going through all the bother of gathering data, formulating and testing hypotheses, analysing statistics, and all that other rigamarole when you can just close your eyes, get an opinion, and be done with it? Hard work might eventually pay off someday, but laziness pays off right away.


How do you draw a rational conclusion through a rejection of rationalism?


Oh dear! Is it going to start to spoil now?

Switzerland has a history of internal political conflict. Those traits might not cause strife or apply today, but they did at one time. Religious strife between the cantons (not to mention the rest of europe) was very real at one time. Not unsimilar to the religious strife we see in the Middle East today.

Well...all you need for a democracy is a voting card for every citizen, right? I think you understand what I am implying. You haven't provided any reason why democracy cannot succeed under your given five criteria...simply current examples that it hasn't happened. At one time the Christian world was divided too.

Yes, and when Switzerland was undergoing that kind of strife hundreds of years ago, it wasn't a democracy, which adds weight to my claims that these kinds of strife are inimical to the establishment of democracy.


Again, when the Christian world was divided, it didn't have any democracy at all. What I'm saying is that highly polarized societies just can't seem to make democracy work. It's true that I haven't proven my case. But it is surely reasonable to suggest that tribal polarization would make it much harder to build a democracy, and my analysis is consistent with that: countries with tribal polarization don't have democracy. I therefore think it reasonable to conclude that the tribal polarization in Iraq will make it much more difficult to establish a democracy there.

Erasmussimo, you made a lot of tests and a lot scientific calculations as to why Iraq cannot maintain a stable democracy. But i saw one flaw in your arithmetic...you forgot to carry the one. That one being the will of the people to be free and govern themselves.

Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?

Absolutely. The Iraqi people want to be free and they showed that in the January elections. You know...they said that we couldn't hand over power to a interim government...and we did. They said the Iraqis couldn't hold free elections where majority would vote...they did. They said the Iraqis couldn't form a new government based on ethnic strife...they did.

What is the problem here? The terrorists have tried to rip that country to part...but now they are left to acts of desperation. Before they were living in strongholds in Tikrit and Fallujah...now where are they fighting? Little towns near the Syrian border. They are getting wiped out. I don't even think Zarqawi believes he can defeat the US militarily OR politically. Now all he is doing is killing the Iraqi people, the very people he is supposedly trying to help. It will not be long before the insurgency is crushed with the help of the Iraqi people. Who do you think they are going to be mad at in the end? The people using roadside bombs to kill their citizenry or the US who are trying to aid them in tracking those people down?

Iraq will be a stable democracy and once the insurgency is crushed and the terrorists leave the country...the seed of democracy will blossom into a flower whose scent will reach the ends of the earth.

But you know what? It's going to take time. It took years and a failed constitution before the US finally ratified the US Constitution. We went without a stable central government for over a decade. Iraq has had 4 months and already people are getting excited.

What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?

In 20 years, i expect Iran to be a free nation. In 20 years, i expect China to be a free nation. In 20 years, i expect this world to be closer to full-fledged democratization than ever before. It can't be stopped. People WANT to have a say in how they are governed. People WANT to be able to buy goods at their own discression. People WANT a government that is responsible to the population. People WANT the opportunity to improve their lives.

I think the questions really boil down to....do you want Iraq to become a success story or do you want it to fail and fall into dictatorship. The iraq war is about more than just the principles of democracy v. tyranny or war v. diplomacy...its an ideological battle between two groups of people. If iraq becomes a democracy...then it is possible for freedom and good to come from invasion. If Iraq fails, then the skeptics are proven right...but iraq is still a failure.

I wonder how do you explain the fact mentioned in this article in Newsweek:



Women vote for Hamas instead of more moderate M. Abbas even though, unlike Abbas's party, Hamas doesn't treat them as equal to men:



If your theory was true, women of Palestine would vote for the party which provides them with the most freedom; instead, they flock to conservative ideologues.
This is just an example how people have very different concepts of "freedom"; it's a mistake to think that everybody wants it the way we, in the Western world, want it. It's an even graver mistake to push our concepts down people's throats.

While a large number of Iraqi's did brave the terrorist threat to vote in the January elections, I'm not sure if it's all because they wanted the US' version of democracy. It is possible that many Iraqi's voted because they knew the people they were voting for had a timetable and plan to get the multinational forces out of Iraq. Others could have voted because they wouldn't get food rations. All of those accomplishments you list out, where done with the US' forces being right there. Once they leave we could be left with a whole new picture.




This logic dates back to the cold war's Domino Theory. The Domino Theory basically stated that if one country fell to communism the other countries around it would too. Well, if it didn't work for communism why would it work for democracy? Iran, Syria, and any other country that might pick up on this scent are not the same as Iraq.


Yes people do WANT to have a say in how they are governed but that doesn't necessarily mean they WANT the US' version of democracy and that doesn't make them wrong.

So heretofore the Iraqi people had no will to be free and govern themselves, but now they have changed their minds and decided that now they do have the will to be free? Your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. Yes, everybody wants to be free. Do you think that the North Koreans yearn to starve under a miserable tyranny? Do you think that the Sudanese prefer to be terrorized and murdered? Do you think that Congo is embroiled in civil war and anarchy because that's the way the Congolese want it?

Democracy is not obtained by a mere act of will. Closing your eyes, tapping your toes together and saying "I want to be free... I want to be free" doesn't make it so. Democracy requires a whole range of social and cultural conditions to be in satisfied, and those conditions do not exist in Iraq.


Have people ever wanted anything else? Do you really think that the average Sumerian 4,000 years ago didn't want the exact same things? Do you really think that the Russian peasant in 1100 AD didn't want those things? Do you really think that the typical Amerindian of 1677 didn't want those things? Yet for all those thousands of years, with all those people wanting it, they didn't get it. It wasn't for any lack of desire -- it was the inability to figure out how to organize society to make it work.


You ask whether I want Iraq to be a success; I find your question leaves me with so many opportunities for irony that I am unable to pick the best. I shall only say this: recognizing danger does not constitute a preference for danger, and ignoring danger does not make it go away.

That, in and of itself, is not expressly undemocratic. It is contrary to the concept of Western democracy but as long as Iraqis have a choice as to whether o subject themselves to religious authority it will not thwart democracy.

It is true that not all of the members of Iraq's new government fully understand democracy, but I wouldn't say all are in the dar. The new PM for example lived in the UK for many years. Iraqis, especially those involved in political parties, were not blind to the workings of the Western world. This is shown by the commitment to enshrining basic freedoms into constitutional law.

There are not wholly ignorant.

Pardon?

I was under the impression the British installed a monarchy upon leaving.

As I recall, they installed a constitutional monarchy rather like their own. I do not recall the division of power between the king and the legislative body.

Allow me to expand on this point about the Iraqis not understanding democracy. It's not an intellectual issue; I'm sure that most Iraqis understand democracy conceptually. It's really a matter of belief, not comprehension, and it's an analogue version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Each person in the country really wants democracy, but each person is uncertain as to the commitment of his political opponents to democracy. He has no way of knowing whether the other side will respect the rule of law. In an ideal country, every single person has absolute, 100% respect for the rule of law and will carry out his political responsibilities accordingly. We don't even have that situation in this country; politicians regularly bend the rules for political advantage -- and their behavior saps the vigor of our democracy. Moreover, a goodly portion of our citizens hold the rule of law in less than full respect: witness the correspondents here who disdain international law, the Geneva Conventions, laws against torture, and argue that nonviolence never really solves anything. These attitudes undermine the strength of democracy, because they lessen everybody's confidence that the rule of law will truly be respected by others.

So the problem in Iraq is this: everybody right now is saying all the right things about the importance of democracy. But everybody is also keeping his gun under his bed, ready to bring it out if "those other guys" start to ignore the rule of law. Their confidence in the rule of law is shallow, because they have lived their entire lives in the absence of any rule of law. They have always looked to their tribal and religious leaders for justice, not to the law. They're willing to give the law a chance, but the moment something goes wrong (and you can be quite certain that things will go wrong), they'll return to the social systems they can rely on.

The evolution of confidence in the rule of law is always a vicious circle and never a virtuous one. One prominent violation sends everybody racing for their guns, but ten prominent adherances yield only a slightly lessened atmosphere of suspicion. It takes decades, even generations to build up the confidence in each other's respect for the rule of law that is required for a functional democracy. When the 2000 election in this country was exposed to be seriously flawed and people had doubts as to its legitimacy, there was only one small group that resorted to violence and rioted. The rest of the country remained calm and accepted the rule of law, even though it seemed grossly unfair to many and contradicted the desires of the majority. That's because everybody had confidence that, in the long run, the rule of law would still function and would still protect their vital interests.

That confidence does not exist in Iraq. Had there been serious problems with the recent elections, had there been doubts as to its fairness, then people would have started shooting. And herein lies the doom of Iraqi democracy. The Iraqi people have not committed to democracy, they have merely expressed an optimistic willingness to give it a try. So long as there remain enough uncertainties to permit each faction to believe that its own expectations will be met, they will continue to support democracy. But as the deals start getting made, and clear winners and losers begin to emerge, the losers will start to lose confidence in democracy. They will be quick to reach for their guns. And the whole business will come crashing down.

This is not inevitable. Perhaps a leader of wisdom, grace, and courage will emerge who will unify these people behind the rule of law. Perhaps they will resolve the uncertainties at such a slow pace that the disappointments to each faction will come too slowly to trigger an uprising. I remain hopeful, but the logic of history does not give me cause for optimism.

Ok...so what? They are voting and that's what is important. Even if your theory stands its still a good sign. However, the Iraqis voted for those who they thought could best run their government. And the officials they have voted for have said on numerous occasions they do not want the US-Coalition forces to leave until the Iraqi Security Forces can handle the insurgency.



The Iraqis don't have US-Style democracy. If anything, their political system is loosely based off of the French model which is more democratic but has less checks and balances.



Its because these people have never been given the opportunity to have a voice. Every time they tried to bring freedom...they have been oppressed. In Tieneman Square in 1989, Chinese protesters demanded freedom...but Deng sent in the tanks to squash the protesters. Would they not still be proponents of democracy if there were others to protect them from the tanks?

People want to be free, stable, and peaceful. North Korea, Sudan, Congo...these people have never had the opportunity to freedom. They have never been allowed. Its easy for us to criticize and say what we want because we have freedoms and are able to. Would many of us make such statements when there was a gun to our head? Hey in the last pre-war election...Iraqis voted for Saddam Hussein with 99% of the vote...pretty impressive huh?



You're right...they couldn't make it work. We and the International Community are helping Iraq make this transition....they are not alone. Just like how the Iranian people are not alone and all the other people who want to be free.



So in other words...you don't want to directly answer the question because answering one way or the other is a test to your ideological beliefs? I mean it is pretty simple. Either you want Iraq to be a success through the current situation (invasion) or you would rather it fail and have your ideology proven correct.

I refrained from answering the question because it is an absurd question and the answer is obvious: of course I am hopeful for the success of the Iraqi experiment. But as I have already stated, hope and optimism are completely different matters. Do you truly believe that there is anybody in this debate so evil as to hope for Iraqi suffering merely as a means to confirm their own political beliefs? Do you think me that evil?

Is it likely that our efforts in Iraq will yield a functioning democracy in that nation?

No. I don't believe American policymakers want democracy in Iraq, and even if they did, it's doubtful America's efforts would create democracy. The best that can be hoped for, if the wind is right, the stars aligned just so, and the vultures kept at bay, is that, from chaotic civil war, democracy will, some day, by the Iraqi people's own will and efforts, emerge. It's not going to be imposed from without. Now, when I remember Germany and Japan after WWII, I must say there is the possibility for an exception! Especially since Japan's culture was about as far removed from Europe's and America's as Iraq's culture is. So I admit, I could be wrong.

What kind of result do you expect to see in 20 years: functioning democracy, a 5.5 dictatorship, or civil war?

There is no way on earth I can predict that far ahead. I saw something today (someone had posted it on another board), and it reminded me of similar articles I've read, with this comment inserted in various ways. I'm going to post the quote (the whole article is a good read, actually, and pertinent to this thread):







Is this the hint that people should accept a brutal, pro-US dictatorship that oppresses women, slaughters all opposition, censors the media, and keeps the oil flowing? I hope all Americans respond to this sort of talk with: "No, we won't get our expectations down. So long as one US soldier is in Iraq, that soldier better be committed to liberty and democracy, not to dictatorship and the protection of oil wells!" Since people pointed to post WWII Germany and Japan and said Iraq would soon be prosperous, just as Japan and Germany are now prosperous, well then, let's see it. Or let's admit we can't do it, apologize for what we've done, pack up, and let China, France, and Russia have their oil deals back.

I'm confused by your line of reasoning. Just because an Iraqi votes doesn't mean they are willing to die for democracy or a new government. The fact that they vote is not important, it's why they are voting. You said that the fact that Iraqis voted in Jan. proved that Iraqi's really want a democracy. Well, we can't really be sure of that. It's possible the reason they were voting was so that they could get their next shipment of food to feed their family or to get US forces out. If I'm a starving Iraqi and can't feed my family and someone tells me the only way I'm going to get food is if I vote, well then I'll vote for whoever you ask, a Sunni, Shia, Saddam, whoever, I just want my food. If democracy is going to be successful then the people of Iraq are truly going to want it (you are correct in that point and I agree) but just by the fact that they voted alone does not prove that.




Yes, I'm well aware that they style of government isn't going to be the same. The fact of the matter is, once all is said and done we can't be disappointed if their form of government is closer to a theocracy or some other form of government if that's what Iraqi's want.

I am extremely curious as to why you believe this in spite of the repeated claims by American policymakers, our sacrifices in that country, and the recent free elections.

Could you please elaborate?

I'll be glad to explain as best I can:

I don't believe the elections in Iraq were particularly free (if I voted by numbers instead of names, I'd wonder about the usefulness of it, myself).


In any case, the main part of my opinion rests on the past behavior of policymakers who covertly or overtly toppled regimes in Haiti (numerous times), Iran, the Congo, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Peru....this list could get long, so let me summarize:

America doesn't, as a rule, install democracies. It installs US-friendly dictatorships. Japan and Germany are the only two exceptions to this rule that readily come to mind, and my list of nations we have done the opposite in is, off the top of my head, probably at least thirty countries long. I know I can give you more than twenty.

Therefore, based on history (and more particularly, the 1980s, from whence many of our current policymakers come, including Negroponte and North, two men who were decidedly not pro-democracy in Latin America), I'd say America's policymakers aren't interested in a free and Democratic Iraq. But it could happen. Anything could happen.

You bring up some very interesting history... if you take a look at the past 100 years the only time successfull democracies took root in a country in which was invaded by US forces only happened when the US occupied the country with a large amount of forces for a long amount of time. In other words, judging from history, covert op's and a few bombs/assasinations usually only makes matters worse.

I skimmed through this entire tread and feared that no one was going to bring up the motivation of the American government as a determining factor. Thanks, ralou, for your contribution above. Your short history lesson on American Cold War (and subsequent) interventions is pertinent. However, I also think it is clear that the United States real purpose in Iraq has not been, and is not now, the establishment of democracy. An incomplete list of acts that make this clear would have to include: protecting the oil ministry and facilities but nothing else after the invasion, the failure to hold elections early on when General Garner wanted to, the disbanding of the army also against Garner's suggestions, Bremer's decrees in violation of international law privatizing most of the economy, the attempt to impose a rigged permanent government, resisting the Shiite demand for early elections until Sastani ordered his followers into the streets to demand them, pressuring the UN to cooperate in delaying them further, possible interference with the election counting process, recent overwhelming pressure on the new government not to purge Bathists from the security forces, the failure to designate a withdrawal time frame, and, most significantly, the building of a number of permanent military bases to project power within the oil region. What this administration wants in Iraq is a shame democracy - one that helps protect our access to their oil and provides bases to poject power in the whole region.

Erasmussimo is also correct in pointing out the difficulty of establishing a democracy in Iraq even if the U.S. government had the best of intentions. All of these barriers were well know before the invasion.

Erasmussimo...

A very well thought out and analyzed post. However, as with so many things statistical, it is difficult to draw cause and effect from this type of analysis. For all of the factors you cite above, I ask the following question: aren't these the very factors that can best be addressed through democracy? In short, in areas where significant polarization exists, I think the two sides can best come to mutual agreement only through democracy. Otherwise, what you are left with is one group forcibly subjugating the other. This creates the very situations from which terrorism and revolt come from. Democracy is the only type of government that gives input to both sides of a polarizating issue. As such, I believe it can always be made to work, given enough time. The alternative is essentially perpetual revolt...and, given a choice, I think people will always prefer peace.

Given this, why have the statistics worked out as you describe? Because Muslim countries have always been places where one group had been able to inflict its will upon another. I think you would find much the same results (perhaps even more telling) in much of Africa. I would argue that democracy is the only workable answer there as well. What other method of government is workable among competing factions?

Absolutely. This analysis proves nothing, as correlation does not prove causation. It suggests causation, but that suggestion is undermined by the existence of any unknown variables that might be causative for both variables. If, for example, there is some deep underlying psychological factor that predisposes people to being Muslim AND to rejecting democracy, then the Muslim factor is not causative for democracy. However, in this case, it would still be indicative of resistance to democracy. I suggest that my analysis proves nothing but indicates that democracy will be especially difficult to achieve in Iraq.



Yes, democracy is always the best solution. But we have a chicken and egg problem. Democracy is like water on the fire of political violence, but political violence makes democracy impossible. Thus, democracy cannot be achieved by merely snapping one's fingers and announcing that henceforward, Iraq will be democratic. We have to build up a sense of mutual confidence in the respect for the rule of law. Everybody has to come to believe that everybody else will follow the rules. Right now, any Iraqi who seriously believes that all other Iraqis will faithfully adhere to democratic ideals is seriously deluded. So we have to take it slow and careful, step by step. It's a long, long process.

I am confident that democracy can be achieved in Iraq, but not for a price most Americans are willing to pay: perhaps $2 trillion, 20 years of occupation, and another thousand American deaths. We can get by on less, but then democracy will be slower in arriving.

Let's imagine the evolution of Iraq's freedom index over the course of time. Under Saddam, it was 7; the goal is 1. Currently, I'd guess it at about 3 to 4. If we were to leave right now, it would quickly drop down to 5 or 6 and then would slowly rise, taking perhaps 50 to 100 years to get to 1. If we stay 5 years, then it would probably be up to 3 by the time we depart, drop down to 4 or 5, then slowly rise, taking perhaps 20 to 50 years to get to 1. If we stay 10 years, then it will rise to maybe 2, drop to 3 or 4, then slowly rise, taking maybe 15 - 30 years to get to 1. But if we stay 20 years (and spend the $2 trillion), then I think we could get it up to 1 and it would remain there upon our departure.

These are of course all rough guesses, but I think they illustrate the basic course: the sooner we leave and the less we spend, the further back Iraq will relapse into tyranny and the longer it will take to achieve true democracy.

The force in Iraq isn't large enough, contractors are filling in a lot of personnel gaps, some of those who worked for Saddam's secret police have found a new home with American 'counter insurgency' teams, the presence of cold warriors who willingly prop up brutal dictators sends a bad message and may portend which way the wind blows, and I have spoken with a South Korean who is not happy with the way the US ran things and with what kind of people the US put in charge of things there, so that may be a counter-example (but I'd have to do more research, it's a war I know little about). In addition, there was Vietnam, a brutal, unsuccessful occupation, which Iraq resembles far more than it resembles Japan and Germany (after all, Japan and Germany had lost a lot of fighters and equipment by the time the occupation took root, not to mention the matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The rosy picture that the administration has been painting of happy Iraqis joining together in the spirit of democracy is starting to crumble. American military commanders are starting to warn that we might be stuck in Iraq for many years. A senior official in Baghdad said that the 21 car bombings in Baghad so far this month almost matched the 25 in all of last year. Another officer said that the success of the American effort was not assured. Recent polls conducted by Baghdad University show public confidence has fallen from 85% immediately after the election to just 45% now. Here's the story: link?

It would appear that we will not soon be seeing Iraqi political conventions complete with flag-waving, straw-hatted delegates waving little Iraqi flags as candidates wave to the crowds and balloons fall from above.

I disagree that the administration has painted such a picture since the beginning of the insurgency.

Acknowledging progresss along with the difficulties is not painting a rosy picture but an accurate one.

The political process is moving forwards, slowly, but carefully. In a manner more likely to produce lasting solutions.

Iraqis continue to join the security forces at a steady rate, so much I hear that there are not the resources to train them all...

A pessimist is not more realistic than an optimist.

I'd be careful to automatically assume that slow movement of the political process will produce lasting results. We don't know exactly what was going on in those meetings. If the Iraqis took so long to set up a Government because they were trying to find the ideal candidates for each position, then theirs hope. If they were just fighting and arguing the whole time then I wouldn't hold out as much hope. This isn't to say that everyone must agree, but what was going on those in those chambers all those months? That to me would be a better indicator of the potential for success rather than the fact that they got smiting together.

Also, I'm not sure what people joining the security forces has to do with public confidence? Democracy is about the public, not the government or the security forces. As Erasmussimo pointed out, public confidence seems to be waning. I assume you're suggesting that the consistent flow of candidates into the ING is a sign that the Iraqi people believe in democracy. Well, the stats don't seem to line up with this so maybe theirs another explanation. Could it be that the ING is an easily obtainable paying job? Iraqis have families to feed and they're going to do whatever it takes to feed them. Just because they sign up doesn't mean too much. We paid a lot of South Vietnamese to put on the ARVN uniform, but we didn't convince most of them to fight. Granted the ING has had some accomplishments, but I wouldn't be so quick to attribute it to their passion for democracy.

turnea, you are right in saying that a pessimist is not more realistic than an optimist but I don't think Erasmussimo or I or others are being pessimistic. The validity of the polls or any statistical measurement aside, one would thinking that basing your assertion on polls, facts, and plausible reasoning would be more realistic than blind optimism. You seem to be quoting the same sound bites that the Bush administration is throwing at us but theirs no substance to that.

Actually, there is....not really psychological, but ingrained enough in their culture to be considered so. The entire concept of Islamic law is that there is no separation of church and state...they are one and the same. This is why they are so skeptical of Western democracies...since Western countries are mainly Christian, to them democracy must then also be Christian. This is a hurdle that needs to be overcome. However, as I said in my initial post, democracy, although probably difficult to achieve, is also likely the only feasible solution to the many issues facing Iraq. I have a strong belief that when there is really only one workable solution, that it will indeed be the one eventually arrived at....particularly when there are other powerful forces pushing it in that direction.

I do think the recent elections showed great promise. People seem to grasp the power that democracy gives them. Once somebody has that, I think it is very difficult to go in any other direction.

Well, they certainly have been emphasizing the positive and minimizing the negative.


I agree entirely and I am not taking the position of a pessimist. I am instead attacking the politically prejudiced optimism that permeates our nation. I prefer a reasoned realism, which I find lacking in much commentary on Iraq.


I agree that the Muslim conflation of church and state does create a major obstacle to democracy, and the high correlation between Christianity and democracy does add a prejudice against democracy. But to counter these observations with the entirely correct point that democracy is the best solution seems a bit more hopeful than reasoned. The odds against successful achievement of democracy in the near term are long.

I agree, it is my greatest frustration with the press coverage of Iraq. Rather than focus on negotiations that have true policy implications we are treated to the latest buzz suicide bombings and the like.


From what I understand (and information is limited) the time was in fact spent finding the best people for the various jobs. Right now "best" means the person who will best alleviate the anxieties of one group or another, but if that is the problem it's best to try and address it.

About the public yes, but not necessarily "public confidence" at any one point in time.

Eyes on the goal is my refrain on this note. the public will be confident when they have greater security which will, in turn, afford greater infrastructure repair. the concerns in iraq are highly practical and not really based on public opinion.

Insurgents want to destroy progress towards democracy and they must be stopped.
Sounds like a Pentagon press release, I know, but it is the simple truth.



I wasn't arguing security force sign up was primarily evidence of Iraqi democrats dedication. I agree that once again the concerns are more practical. That said the stats do indicate that iraqi support democracy. The point of the security forces is to give that support an environment it can thrive in.

I'm no blind optimist, I would better be described a highly determined realist. The data tells me their is a shot at democracy, the determination tells me we (The coalition and the Iraqis) should take that shot.