US abandoning plans to bring democracy to Iraq, say Kurds

[Sava]

Ted: The sanctions are what made the Iraqi population poor. And BTW, who financed Saddam's war against Iran? yeah that's right...

Anyways, one just has to look at the failure in Afghanistan to see what will happen in Iraq. Except the Kurds will probably get screwed by our "Ally" Turkey.

[DuncanK]

Does everone agree that there will never be American democracy in Iraq? I do.

So onto who will rule Iraq. The thing about de-Baathification is that are there even other Sunnis besides the Baaths, and are they qualified to rule? It seems that de-Nazification was different, becuase there were not other major religious sects in Germany like there are in Iraq.

[General Ludd]

The only people who have been saying anything along the lines of the US bringing democracy to Iraq are the war mongers.

I think most of the anti-war people have realised from the start that they would just install a new dictator once they remove saddam. (edit: and that it ludicrous idea to bring democracy to a country by blowing it up and killing it's leader)



I love watching how some people flip-flop to whatever the government says, though. So much for that "fight for democracy, liberate the people!" argument. I guess it's time for all the warmongers to think up this week's new excuse.

[DuncanK]

I'm not a big fan of American Democracy anyway. I had my doubts from the start, but after some thought it's obvious that Iraq could never be a Democracy. It would not last long, and it can't be determined who would take control after the ashes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
No, I meant the article that I linked. It describes a de-Baathification of Iraq, with the de-Nazification of Germany used as a model.

In other words, go after the top couple dozen bad guys and use the rest to develop post-war Iraq?

[DanS]

Well, there's a tension between who are the best people to develop a post-war Iraq and who are the best in you're redistributing power in accordance with ethnic ties.

Recognizing that tension, I can no more easily say that the US would remove "the top couple dozen bad guys" or "everybody in the current system".

[DuncanK]

Since the Baathist clan is the only group with governing experience I imagine that they retain power. I think the transitional government will be there for a long time 'retraining' these Baathists.

[GePap]

Germany and Jpaan are horrible models for Iraq: besides the patently obvious differences of time and space, there are many other fundamental differences between Iraq and both Japan and Germany.

Neither of the defeated Axis states had any significant internal relegious or ethinic divisions that had not alreayd been sucessfully worked out: there were no ethnic poltiics to deal with.

Germany and Japan were both diversified Industrial economies of the first rank. Iraq's ecopnomy is still dominated by exports of either Oil, or before the sanctions, agricultural goods. Such a undiversified economy is more open to poltiical control. Who egst to control the OIl in iraq is who gets to control the wealth. This was not an issue in Iraq.

Both the Japanese and german people saw they governemnts that elad them into WW2 as being legitimate: that they fought the conquerors tooth and nail is simply the most obvious proof. When then, their governments utterly collapsed, or surrendered to the conquerors, in a sense the conquerors had aquired a legitimacy to rule and remake the state. We say Saddam is an illegitimate ruler, and our conquest of Iraq willl not make us the legitimate rulers. the best way to expalin thi would be this:

Two men decide to gamble, and put up the deeds to a house as the bet. If both men are the legal owners fo the deeds they placed as best, then the winner, due to the contract just made, rigthfully gets both properties. If one of the men had stolen the dded and lost, the winner has no right over that hosue, since the losser never had the right to give it away in the first place.

If we are there to liberate the Iraqi people from the illegitimate government, then we still have no right to rule them, anymore than Saddam had.

[DuncanK]

Gepap,

I disagree. The Iraqi people, just like everyone else, want order above sovereignty. They will know that the transitional government is necessary, and they will enjoy the new order to things. As long as we govern well, and I think we will, everything will be fine. We will have a window of time before the Iraqis will start demanding sovereignty. After that window closes another government will have to be set up. It's that governments ability to keep order that should be in doubt, and what that government will be.

[GePap]

You say that based on what?

And you claim the Iraqis can't have order on their won? Based on what? The Kurds have order where they live, without the US. What evidence do you have that the Iraqi opposition could not come in and set up some type of Iraqi overnemnt of their own?

Any evidence whatsoever?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Bull**** Paiktis.

US is there to rebuild.

Iraq had the highest standard of living and was the most advanced state in the Mideast until dumbass Saddam went after Iran, and then Kuwait.

Actually, Saddam didn't "go after" Iran. First, he tried to deal with the Khomeini government, making concessions on the Shatt al Arab waterway and continuing to abide by other working agreements in place with the Shah, which were ignored by Khomeini. Saddam put up with Iranian fundamentalist agents trying to foment rebellion and the creation of a fundamentalist Shiite state in all or at least the southern part of Iraq, and he put up with Iranian sponsored assassinations of Iraqi officials in and around Basra for over a year before invading.

At the time of the invasion, virtually the entire arab world and the US agreed (at least in terms of their actions aiding the Iraqis) that the Iraqis had a reasonable casus belli against an aggressive rogue state. In terms of military capability, the Iraqis had no chance, but they had to man up against the Iranians, or continue to get subverted and *****slapped.

There were reasons for slapping the Kuwaitis around as well, and initially, virtually nobody in the arab world was particularly sympathetic to the Kuwaitis, who were and are reputed to be arrogant *******s.

Doesn't mean that Saddam isn't a dangerous *******, but he isn't the mad, unprovoked and unpredictable aggressor US propaganda paints him as.

And democracy in Iraq simply ain't gonna work - none of the rest of our lackeys, er, um, "allies" want it - the Turks don't want to encourage Kurdish nationalism, our bought off Kings, Emirs, and Sheikhs consider government by the masses to be subversive (hint, does anyone seriously think that any form of democratic Saudi government would let the Saudi royal family keep all those oil assets as their family property?). The only foreign power who would benefit be real democratization in Iraq would be the Iranians, who would exploit their improved connection with the majority Iraqi Shiites to influence the Iraqi government.

DuncanK: History hasn't shown many peoples who want foreign forcibly imposed "order" over their own sovereignty.

[Az]

Didn't know those things about early dealings between Saddam, and the new Irani regime, Thanks MtG!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
DanS beat me to the (first) WAPO article.

I'm getting fed up with this bullshit.
There is no convincing case whatsoever that invading Iraq, setting up a government of our choosing, and then staying there for an undetermined number of years until the whole thing gets off the ground, is worth the time, money, and, yes, lives that we are going to have to put into it. Much less any reasonable probability of success when we are done. I am appalled that Paul Wolfowitz and his like receive any serious hearing in a democratically elected government. [/rant]

There. Now I feel much better.

Agreed 100%

Dan: I think the present alternative sucks as well, but it's time to face up the the fact that sanctions are impotent. The no-fly zones don't have any effect against Iraqi aggression on the ground against the Kurds or Shiites, so IMO, they should be eliminated as well. Sanctions should be lifted, IMO, since they are ineffective.

As things stand now, all Hussein's neighbors are far better prepared to deal with any Iraqi aggression, and there's no doubt a lot more people would agree that there was a clear casus belli IF Hussein or his successors make military threats against their neighbors, or escalate repression against the Kurds or Shiites.

The US is going in with minimal support internationally outside the UK and Australia, no long term plan, no long term vision, and no real concept of how all the possibilities can play out. And we're doing so while critically tying up a huge portion of our combat capacity, for God doesn't even know how long.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap
You say that based on what?

And you claim the Iraqis can't have order on their won? Based on what? The Kurds have order where they live, without the US. What evidence do you have that the Iraqi opposition could not come in and set up some type of Iraqi overnemnt of their own?

Any evidence whatsoever?

There you go on about evidence again. Decisions must be made were there is no clear evidence to proof things one way or another. To just leave the Iraqis to determine their government from the get go would immediately be disasterous. I'm absolutely possitive that the entire region would erupt into war.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
DuncanK: History hasn't shown many peoples who want foreign forcibly imposed "order" over their own sovereignty.

Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination.

People go on and on about soveriegnty, but it's really about order, security and prosperity.

Iraq will accept our rule for awhile as long as we don't exploit them. Agreed soon they will want their own government.