Result of Invasion - Dictatorship or Democracy?

[a_unique_person]

There appears to be much debate in the Dubya Administration over what the result of the invasion will be for the Iraqi people.

According to this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/25/sprj.irq.post.saddam/index.html) , it could just as easily be a dictator favourable to the west as anything. And dictators favourable to the west have a long history of being just as unfavourable to their own countrymen as Saddam.



And now there are concerns over how long U.S. troops may remain in Iraq if there is a war.

U.S. Deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley has one answer.

"The answer is straightforward: We will stay as long as is necessary but not one day more," Hadley said.

How long troops remain in Iraq depends on what the United States decides to do in the country -- transition quickly to some sort of unelected Iraqi leadership acceptable to the West, or transform Iraq into a democratic nation.

Democrat Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he senses a split on the matter even within the Bush administration.

"My sinking suspicion [from] Cheney, Rumsfeld and company, it is transition," Biden said earlier this month. "The president's occasional comments talk transformation."



given that actually establishing a democtratic, stable country could take a lot of money and years, does the committment appear to be there?

[scotth]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
given that actually establishing a democtratic, stable country could take a lot of money and years, does the committment appear to be there?

That would be the 64 Billion dollar question.

I hope there is. Yep, it could be quite expensive. The pay off could be incredible though.

If we can pull it off without too many big screw ups, it could do alot to stabilize the entire mid east. It will probably take a couple decades for all the political fallout or benefit to become obvious.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by scotth


That would be the 64 Billion dollar question.

I hope there is. Yep, it could be quite expensive. The pay off could be incredible though.

If we can pull it off without too many big screw ups, it could do alot to stabilize the entire mid east. It will probably take a couple decades for all the political fallout or benefit to become obvious.
Maybe they could use the Japan model....In 50 years we will all be driving Iraqi cars.....

[corplinx]

The Japanese didn't become the industrial bitchslap of the 70s and 80s just because they had a republic instilled. They also adopted this new revolutionary process called "Total Quality Management" from America (but which American companies were too egotistical to adopt). The result is that pretty soon they were making products with fewer defects and better yields.

Perhaps we should send the current operational management flavor of the decade to Iraq after we liberate them and start consulting them on rebuilding their infrasctructure and industry.

Six Sigma for Iraq? Scary.

[a_unique_person]

What is amazing is the difference between the cost of the invasion, estimated at up to 200 billion dollars, and what will be spent after it. My guess is nowhere near that much.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


given that actually establishing a democtratic, stable country could take a lot of money and years, does the committment appear to be there?

It doesn't matter what the commitment is today. Will it be there as election time rolls around? I would be willing to bet that those troops (hundreds of thousands) will be out when it is politically desireable.

[Tmy]

What happenjed in Afganistan? WE put in that one guy, but are there plans for an election.

If Iraq was democratic, wouldnt they just elect some anti-west muslim zealots anyway.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Tmy
What happenjed in Afganistan? WE put in that one guy, but are there plans for an election.

If Iraq was democratic, wouldnt they just elect some anti-west muslim zealots anyway.

Ah, I hate democracy when they don't suppport the things I do...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There appears to be much debate in the Dubya Administration over what the result of the invasion will be for the Iraqi people.

That's because, ultimately, its up to the Iraqi people.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by The Fool

Maybe they could use the Japan model....In 50 years we will all be driving Iraqi cars.....
Will it come with the car bomb pre-installed, or is that option available only on the palestinian model?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by The Fool

Maybe they could use the Japan model....In 50 years we will all be driving Iraqi cars.....

Yeah...that free market is a bitch, isn't it...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy
What happenjed in Afganistan? WE put in that one guy, but are there plans for an election.

If Iraq was democratic, wouldnt they just elect some anti-west muslim zealots anyway.

Iraq has been a secular country, and before saddam trashed it, doing relatively well. I don't think they are actually going to vote in a zealot, because they don't blame the west for their problems, but saddam.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Iraq has been a secular country, and before saddam trashed it, doing relatively well. I don't think they are actually going to vote in a zealot, because they don't blame the west for their problems, but saddam.

Another surprise. On this particular issue you are more optimistic than I am. I worry that a decade of sanctions and suffering has pushed them into the arms of the extremists. If that turns out not to be the case then life should be a lot easier for us in the rebuilding process since we can (and should) hold an election almost immediately without fear of getting an actively hostile government. I would say it doesn't matter if the government is pro-Western (unlikely to last in any case) as long as it isn't actively ANTI-Western (like Iran or North Korea). That has always been my fear about Iraq, that the government that follows Saddam may be even worse.

[Skeptic]

There appears to be much debate in the Dubya Administration over what the result of the invasion will be for the Iraqi people.

But, AUP, you're for not attacking, and retaining in Iraq a dictator UNFRIENDLY to the US, AND one of the worst of them as far as human rights or anything else is concerned, besides. You're hardly in a moral position to attack the US's plan for a post-Saddam government. Surely, it couldn't be worse, and would probably be much better, than the Iraqi government you support.

Besides, why is it that you are so keen to believe any of the numerous "true evil secret plans" of Bush and his advisors for Iraq floating around the internet, but for some reason consider the possibilty that Saddam might not be telling the truth about his arsenal unlikely? Do you really consider Saddam Hussein more trustworthy than George W. Bush or Colin Powell?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There appears to be much debate in the Dubya Administration over what the result of the invasion will be for the Iraqi people.

But, AUP, you're for not attacking, and retaining in Iraq a dictator UNFRIENDLY to the US, AND one of the worst of them as far as human rights or anything else is concerned, besides. You're hardly in a moral position to attack the US's plan for a post-Saddam government. Surely, it couldn't be worse, and would probably be much better, than the Iraqi government you support.

Besides, why is it that you are so keen to believe any of the numerous "true evil secret plans" of Bush and his advisors for Iraq floating around the internet, but for some reason consider the possibilty that Saddam might not be telling the truth about his arsenal unlikely? Do you really consider Saddam Hussein more trustworthy than George W. Bush or Colin Powell?

i think one of the main points is that Dubya and friends cannot decide amongst themselves what they are trying to achieve. Seems to me that if you haven't got your requirements sorted out yet, then you shouldn't be getting to far advanced in the implementation.