Will history repeat itself?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Daz
Ahem. Allow me to clarify concerning Afghanistan. I was primarily thinking about the gov installed by the Russians. There is a new one installed by the US, but as you said... time will tell.

The biggest problem from my point of view is that you cannot install a democratic govenment. You can install a dictator, but a democratic government is soon about to get elected-away, and you most likely have your enemy back in power.

That leaves the world powers (nowadays USA) installing dictators in place of dictators.....

Not necessarily. Interim governments installed to stabilize a country do not have to turn into long term governments. They key is to not abandon them to their own devices. Afghanistan is a good example. The current governmental structure is not the one anyone invisions in the long run. It is an example of crawl before you walk. You simply cannot walk into a country that has never had freedom and say "Here it is...good luck and see ya!" It takes time for institutions of free government to installed and the process that comes with them. It also takes time for people to learn their responsibilities and abilities under a free system of government.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending how you view it), the US military has the ability to provide stability while these institutions form and the population understands their role. However a straight military rule is not beneficial in most circumstances. Therefore an interim government of locals supported by a stabilizing military force should lead to the proper creation of the institutions desired.

[Daz]

Yes, plato. So I presume we can agree upon the thought that straight military rule (read dictatorship) is the only way to keep control for a longer period.

Setting up an interim gov is the same as dictatorship with an expiration date. The freely elected government is of course the only righteous way. But in Iraq, it could be tricky.

It depends on the short and long term intrests of the USA. My guess is short term: get great contract for the military industry. Long term: get great rebuilding contracts which will get paid with cheap oil.

I guess we'll have to sit and wait to see if the population is more anti-american or anti-saddam.

[PLATO]

Daz, I think it depends on how you define "long term". If you are talking about a period of up to 2-3 years, then I believe we do agree on that point. Longer than that I believe that military involvement would lead to destabilization of the nation. For even that time period to be effective, benchmarks of a transition to free Iraqi rule would need to be necessary.

We do definately agree that freely elected governments in Iraq could be tricky. This is the reason that a stabilized interim government is necessary. This country needs time to build a "political infrastructure" to be able to transition to democratic rule.

Finally, We do agree as well that it is in the interest of the US to let contracts to its own interest to rebuild Iraq. This, however, also has a benefit to the Iraqi people. They will be getting the type of infrastructure that they have long been able to afford, but have never been allowed. I know your point is to the fact that these contracts will go almost exclusively to coalition partners. To that I would simply say...We invited the world, and they decided not to come.

[ThePantaloonDog]

You simply cannot walk into a country that has never had freedom and say "Here it is...good luck and see ya!" It takes time for institutions of free government to installed and the process that comes with them. It also takes time for people to learn their responsibilities and abilities under a free system of government.

This is exactly what we're doing in Afghanistan. As soon as we got the Taliban out we just needed someway to keep the country from falling around our heads why root out Osama's boys. Bush had nothing in his budget for the rebuilding of Afghanistan, luckily Congress shelled out 300 million in theirs. Afghanistan was a dirty shell of a country before the US and it will remain so.

We have a lot more to lose if we free Iraq, prop up some 'democratic' regime in three months, and take off. Hopefully the Bush adminstration sees this and actually puts in the effort.

[GePap]

Imposed governments can only survive once the power that placed them in power leaves if it was left wth a significant base of power.

As for real democracy: real democracy, that is a system where they have not only elections but a system to insure that the elections are not manipulated, the results ginored, laws brokne, run away corruption stemmed, so forth and so on, takes a while. What it needs most is a strong judiciary and a dedicated bureaocracy. The one place were the US could make a difference in Iraq is by trying to install a constitution and a civil serivce to faithfully carry it out. The success in japan and germany was mainly due to the fact that both had efficient civil services and magistrates. once you de-politicized those then they could be sued to enforce the rule of law. The other point was the in oth germany and Japan the populations agreed that they had failed in some way to rule thmselves and would agree to the alternative: they as peoples had lost and thus had to forge new paths.

These last thing is lacking in Iraq. We are not fighting Iraqis, we are fighting Saddam..which meas once his regime is gone, Iraqis will not think they had anytig to do with it. People with agendas will return from outside, peole with agendas from inside will pick sides and bickering will occur.

The Us will have t stay for multiple years to give Iraq a good chance. We are getting mixed signals from this admin. about how long they will stay, and judging from how they back up any promises other than that of tax cuts, i think they will leave with the job half done. If we are lucky, Iraq will go like Russia. A period of shaky elections followed by a democratically elected government that rules with an iron fist: and then the question will come when it has to face the first real elestions: will it give up power, or keep it (very common line of events in Africa after decolonization).

[Alex]

Democracy by force... I wonder if it will work.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The plan is for Iraqi's to propose candidates.
Sounds suspiciously like an attempt at Democracy.

Hey, they can have the Re-Baath party vs. the Ayatollah party.

[Sandman]

I doubt I'll be pleasantly surprised by the 'reconstruction' of Iraq. America is both the buyer and seller of the contracts, a clear conflict of interest. They have every incentive to push the price as high as possible, and deliver a shoddy product. What exactly is the Iraqi puppet government going to do if an American company fails to deliver, or poisons a water supply?

If a French company places a competitive bid, then they should get the contract, no doubt about it. Either that, or stop the free-trade talk and come clean with the corporatism.

Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the 'reconstruction' will actually be useful. I can see a situation like the African nations, where their entire transport networks were geared for resource extraction by the European colonisers, developing. Or worthless projects with no economic point for the Iraqi people, like broadband before water supplies in Basra.

[PLATO]

Sandman:

Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the 'reconstruction' will actually be useful.

And no guarantee that it won't be eithier.

Or worthless projects with no economic point for the Iraqi people, like broadband before water supplies in Basra.

Highly doubtful. Nothing more than an argumentative comment.

If a French company places a competitive bid, then they should get the contract, no doubt about it.

GePap:

The one place were the US could make a difference in Iraq is by trying to install a constitution and a civil serivce to faithfully carry it out. The success in japan and germany was mainly due to the fact that both had efficient civil services and magistrates. once you de-politicized those then they could be sued to enforce the rule of law.

This is hopefully insightful to the way things will proceed in Iraq. The establishment of an independent judiciary and an enforcable constitution may be the difference between success and failure for the future of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, this will probably take a significant amount of time as dictators usually foster corruption and undermine authority in a judiciary.

[RGBVideo]

"We've seen it in Iran, Afghanistan."

Plain and simple bull****.

"Anyone remember other examples? Any good examples you can remember? "

Yes. Germany and Japan, for 2 examples. WW II.

Hey, they can have the Re-Baath party vs. the Ayatollah party.

[Sandman]

Pretty minimalist response, PLATO.

No guarantee: Ok, let's leave it to chance that American companies working for an American-ordained government won't take the opportunity to build white elephants for huge profits and no chance of punishment.

French excluded: Sure, why go for competition and efficiency when you can have cronyism and corruption. If the Iraqis choose to buy French (not that they'll be allowed), that's their business, and not Americas.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sandman
Pretty minimalist response, PLATO.

No guarantee: Ok, let's leave it to chance that American companies working for an American-ordained government won't take the opportunity to build white elephants for huge profits and no chance of punishment.

French excluded: Sure, why go for competition and efficiency when you can have cronyism and corruption. If the Iraqis choose to buy French (not that they'll be allowed), that's their business, and not Americas.

Sorry for being "minimalist". Your points seem way out of line with common sense. We will not trust in American companies. Do you believe that these things are going to happen in the dark? The UN will be watching, other Arab nations will be watching, Europe will be watching, and the American public will be watching. This issue has caused a split with allies and major discourse among the American and world publics. The US can't afford to proceed down the line you suggest. The US may be arrogant, but it isn't stupid.

WRT the French. If your concern is corruption in contracting, then I suggest you look at the French history in Iraq. It is incredibly laughable that the French would oppose the UNSC resolutions being enforced, cause the biggest Atlantic rift in 45 years, and then come knocking at the door insinuating they should be in control. I say, and a lot of Americans agree, "NOT THIS TIME". It is the US resolve...the US tax dollars...the US blood that has been shed that is giving the Iraqi people their best chance for a free and better life. The French have been an impediment to this opportunity, not a help. My feeling is that they would be the same in a reconstruction.

[GePap]

How were the French an impediment? According to the admins. lawyers this war is legal Iraqis were violating the first set of resoltuions that set up the cease-fire and 1441, which the French voted for. Did the French block our troop movements? What?
All the French did was say no to legitmizing the war with a council vote, and since the US and UK could not even convince all of the undecided that it was right anyway the French actions had 0 real effect on the war, specially given that they were not going to send troops ever.
I am sorry, but this notion that somehow the French stood in the way of the US in practical terms is laughable. They told us we were wrong..hell, i agree with them, but they did nothing to hamper US plans on the ground. I am sure the Turks will get to pay a role in Iraq even though they did directly block US plans. So, please, explain to me that: why Turkey, NATO ally, who never agreed to back this war, and is not a member of the coolition of the willing, and did not allow US forces to open a second front, is allowed to help in remaking Iraq, while France, NATO ally, stated they though the war was wrong, and will not get to participate. Hell, even Germany, who never agreed to this war always made its airspace open to the US and put no restrictions on how the US gets to use its bases, and yet they don;t get a say either?

Please, anyone....anyone at all?

Sorry, but I find the childish pique at the French and Germans just that..the ravings of people so craving to be told they are right and correct and always so good that they lash at anyone who simpel stated: "you guys are wrong" but did nothing else at all.

[PLATO]

GePap, You're right.

The sense of betrayal is just so strong with the French. Perhaps it is because during so much of history we have shared a common cause. Perhaps also, I expected the German and Turkish reactions to some extent. When looking at the facts you present it does seem wrong to single out the French.
OTOH, The Germans and The Turks never flew their Foriegn Ministers to other countries to argue against us. They were not leaders in the "Let's keep the Dictator in Power" club. In a large part, the French were responsible for influencing their reactions. When the time for conflict came, their response was to propose a leading role for themselves through the auspices of the UN and a minor role for the forces that will bring about the liberation of the vastly oppressed Iraqi people.

Am I bitter at the French for not going along with us? Yes, I am. I expected more of them. Will others differ with this opinion? Absolutely. This is their right and I respect that.

As for me, there are a lot of fences to be mended with the French before I am comfortable with their "Allied" status again. Iraq isn't the place to start.

[Sandman]

American reconstruction under media attention: When the dust has settled, Iraq will fall off the public radar, much like Afghanistan has done. If anyone raises objections to the nature of the reconstruction program, they'll most likely be ignored or ridiculed. Suppose a company gets a lucrative contract to build a new motorway, and runs massively overbudget and delivers a shoddy product. Can you see complaints being taken seriously?

The French: Firstly, the French were not alone in deciding that evidence of 'WMD' was not convincing enough to go to war. The US can't decide to enforce resolutions anyway, only the UNSC can, and they were against it. Secondly, they have not 'insinuated' they should be 'in control'.

The Iraqi people should decide whether they want the French or not, it is not America's place to decide. Just because you spent money and lives on them doesn't mean you own them.