Iraq after the war?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DuncanK
In the news conference tonight Bush emphasized the word 'federation' for post-war Iraq. I can't see a weak central government taking power. Strange. Maybe it was just BS.

A weak central government, backed by men with big sticks (aka the US.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boshko


If it was democratic they wouldn't mind, but the rest of the population would have a hard time putting up with the Shia majority running the show.

I think the Kurds would eb ok with it, if they get a certain amount of autonomy and are cut in to some degree on control of the central govt - and i cant think why the Shiites wouldnt do that. That leaves the Sunni Arabs as the odd man out - and they are what, 25% of the total population. How do they stop it???

[lord of the mark]

thius is not a direct response to the poll, but since ming is discourage additional iraq threads im putting it here.


arab liberals and the war on Iraq

From Reaon online

"Arab Liberals and the War

Four Egyptian intellectuals appeared on the Arabic-language ART-TV program Against the Grain this week, and agreed that an American Mideast presence stemming from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could represent a "window of opportunity" for the region. According to the panelists -- three academics and a journalist from the weekly Rose Yusef -- the U.S. could become a force for democratization. Two of the participants, including the journalist, also expressed caution, noting the region's overwhelming problems and numerous political variables should temper anyone's optimism about the ultimate effects of American intervention.

A program like this is noteworthy for a number of reasons. For example, war "hawks" have argued that an American presence would encourage more of the Arab world's liberals to re-emerge after years of keeping their heads down. (Such outspoken liberals as the Egyptian playwright Ali Salem have been ostracized in recent years.) The Against the Grain segment is evidence that this could indeed happen -- that it may already be happening -- and that a meaningful debate about the region's exhausted politics could ensue.

Certainly, this panel engaged in an unrestrained critique of the Arab world. The various participants pronounced the region's post-colonial politics, institutions, and economies to be failures, and the Arab world itself to be stagnating. The coming of the Americans, they speculated, might provide an opportunity for dramatic reform, though it would be up to Arabs to bring about that reform. Interestingly, the issue of Palestine barely came up. There's no link available, but similar arguments about the potential results of an Iraq war were advanced by Fouad Ajami in Foreign Affairs.

American Mideast policy has not been been friendly to Arab liberals; the U.S. has long sought to maintain the region's various tyrannies (including Saddam Hussein's) in the interest of "stability." Osama bin Laden changed that. If the U.S. prosecutes the war and its aftermath in the common interests of U.S. and Arab liberalism (a significant "if"), then 9/11 could be transformed into the suicide of Arab political pathologies. That would be a far more significant response than finding bin Laden under some Central Asian rock."

[PLATO]

Lord of the mark: Very interesting article and topical to this thread.

Perhaps the doom and gloom element of poly are underestimating the ability and desire of the arabs to actually have a better life under free governments.

[DuncanK]

The US would have to use military rule for about 20 years before democracy could take hold, and then its iffy. More often than not liberals never beat out their hardliner counterparts. If they do the hardliners have to be practically eliminated. And at least one generation has to be educationed under a liberal education system.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DuncanK
The US would have to use military rule for about 20 years before democracy could take hold, and then its iffy. More often than not liberals never beat out their hardliner counterparts. If they do the hardliners have to be practically eliminated. And at least one generation has to be educationed under a liberal education system.

Like in Bulgaria??
Roumania
Taiwan

[Bosh]

I think a democratic US friendly regime in Iraq would be immensely more benefical to us then a US friendly dictatorship

Right, but its much harder to keep a democratic regime friendly. It would also piss off the Saudis.

The best case scenario is Option #1, goes vaugely similiar to post WWII Germany and Japan.

Depends on your definition of best-case I guess #1 is very very out there since I don't see the Bush administration putting anywhere near as much effort into rebuilding Iraq as was put into Germany and Japan, after all there's no Warsaw Pact looming on the horizon to goad the US.

I can't see a weak central government taking power.

Poor poor Turkomen.

If he refrains from rebelling he will probably end up as a major leader, and ultimately possibly president, of a united Iraq, under the protection of a US

Not gunna happen, I really don't see the US allowing Islamists to take over without a fight (especially Shia which would again piss off the Saudis).