Extremists taking back Iraq?

[Judith]

Basra is feeling especially liberated these days.
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=IRAQ-BASRA-02-27-04
Gangs of armed militants, operating with almost complete impunity, are terrorizing the streets of Iraq's second-largest city, assaulting and killing alcohol and video merchants in a campaign to impose their rules on what was once the most liberal city in the country.

[iain]

I don't know how true this is in Iraq. In Afghanistan there certainly seem to be significant problems with the new order.

Regional warlords are declining to pass on taxes to the central government, meaning that it is running out of money. Extremists are in charge in many parts of the country - for example there are many regions where girls still can't safely go out in public alone or go to school.

Not too surprising, but sad all the same. Hope Iraq doesn't go the same way.

[shanek]

Let's see...Iraq was artificially carved by the British out of several areas, each inhabited by a separate tribe. With only one power structure to rule them all, these tribal leaders have all been fighting to sieze power for themselves and so naturally the ones who end up ruling are the brutal, ruthless dictators. OF COURSE it's going to be ruled by militant extremists! What do you expect?

The one method of keeping Iraq intact (since they seem bent on doing so) that has any chance of working is to make it a Republic, with each tribal area being its own state. And that's one thing they said they were NOT going to do!

It defies all logic, leaves all sense and reason behind, and the result is a complex mess that has no chance at all of working. Exactly what I've come to expect from government...

[subgenius]

Does that mean you don't think we can get them to convert to a western style democracy?
If so, I wonder how long we should stay, how much we should spend, and how many lives we should sacrifice.

[evildave]

Who says they should even be a 'Western Style' democracy?

They did OK until their 'BDFL' ('benevolent' dictator for life) got cocky and invaded a neighbor.

Now it looks like besides the WMDs, they haven't even turned up any people shredders, all the rage in the propaganda leading up to the invasion. You'd think they'd have one, all grotesque and blood stained all over the TV. Apparently, there is no evidence they ever existed at all.

Perhaps that strong-arm government, totally paranoid and dedicated absolutely to internal security is what was needed to keep all the neighboring fruitcakes from crossing into the borders, and all the internal ones from raising an army of <s>terrorists</s>, er 'freedom fighters' to slaughter lots of people and impose a regime like there was in Afghanistan.

As it is, I still project lots of trouble for the Iraqi people, no matter what happens. Oh well, when they've renamed the country to 'Iraqistan', and start stoning and beheading women for not wearing bags and daring to be educated, we'll know.

Honestly, as long as the oil flows and the gas prices stay down in America, nobody will really care what happens "over there".

[Nikk]

Originally posted by subgenius
Does that mean you don't think we can get them to convert to a western style democracy?
If so, I wonder how long we should stay, how much we should spend, and how many lives we should sacrifice.

Interesting to consider that British India was converted into two states. India which was largely hindu and Pakistan ( East Pakistan is now Bangladesh ) which was largely muslim. India has remained a ramshackle democracy but Pakistan has only had democratic interludes.

Hard to see any reason why Iraq should follow India's path rather than Pakistan's.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
Does that mean you don't think we can get them to convert to a western style democracy?

1) There's never been any reason to believe that a democratic government can be instilled upon an unwilling population by force; in fact, the idea is almost a complete contradiction
2) There have been plenty of western style democracies that have ended up being tyrannical; look at the banana republics
3) Iraq was a democracy, set up by Britain, before we deposed it

So it didn't work, it hasn't worked, and there's no reason to believe it should work.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek


1) There's never been any reason to believe that a democratic government can be instilled upon an unwilling population by force; in fact, the idea is almost a complete contradiction
2) There have been plenty of western style democracies that have ended up being tyrannical; look at the banana republics
3) Iraq was a democracy, set up by Britain, before we deposed it

So it didn't work, it hasn't worked, and there's no reason to believe it should work.
And so an answer to the rest of the questions?
"...how long we should stay, how much we should spend, and how many lives we should sacrifice...."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Let's see...Iraq was artificially carved by the British out of several areas, each inhabited by a separate tribe. With only one power structure to rule them all, these tribal leaders have all been fighting to sieze power for themselves and so naturally the ones who end up ruling are the brutal, ruthless dictators. OF COURSE it's going to be ruled by militant extremists! What do you expect?

The one method of keeping Iraq intact (since they seem bent on doing so) that has any chance of working is to make it a Republic, with each tribal area being its own state. And that's one thing they said they were NOT going to do!

It defies all logic, leaves all sense and reason behind, and the result is a complex mess that has no chance at all of working. Exactly what I've come to expect from government...

Are you saying you want McDonalds to run Iraq?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

1) There's never been any reason to believe that a democratic government can be instilled upon an unwilling population by force; in fact, the idea is almost a complete contradiction


Warning: Dangerous Hidden Assumption!

I agree with this statement. The problem with it is that it's not relevant, because the Iraqis DO want a democracy.

The rest of your post is of dubious relevance. I'm not sure if you're in this boat, but I find it amazingly patronizing of some critics who claim on the one hand that we have no right to choose a form of government for others, then turn around and claim that the Iraqis aren't capable of democracy on the other (implying that they can't even choose for themselves, those silly little natives).

[iain]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The problem with it is that it's not relevant, because the Iraqis DO want a democracy.Actually a good question. Do the Iraqis want democracy? How do we know? (Anyone taken an opinion poll?). I hope they do; but there's no shortage of muslims who believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy so I don't think we can assume that they do.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by iain
Actually a good question. Do the Iraqis want democracy? How do we know? (Anyone taken an opinion poll?). I hope they do; but there's no shortage of muslims who believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy so I don't think we can assume that they do.

Yes, polls have consistently shown that a majority of Iraqis want democracy.

As for the Islamists, they're opposed to democracy because they can't gain power in a democracy.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2221
"Nowhere has an Islamist party advocating the shariah come to power through the ballot box."

[Bottle or the Gun]

It doesn't matter if they want democracy, they have it, like it or not.

I can understand what hell the country is in, that so many in the US will never grasp. Most people just have no frame of reference for what goes on in other countries, or even in parts of their own cities. Their idea of strife is the filter on their riding mower getting clogged. Imagine getting up in the morning not knowing if you will eat that day, or if you will vanish into some killing field. In the US I worry about getting a traffic ticket, not if I will get stoned to death because the local religious leader decides my beard isn't long enough.

I was in the Phillipines after Marcos got kicked out, and it was tense. Everybody was 'free' and didn't know what to do with it. Some went nuts, some were happy, but alot of the groups that were held out of power, oppressed, etc started fighting for control. While it wasn't as violent as Iraq is now it all comes down to a select few wanting to be in control, and I think that is what the US is trying to avoid happen.

[Samus]

I'm sure some Iraqis want democracy, but I would hesitate to assert that the majority of people in all the geopolitical factions of Iraq want it. Which poses a problem for the U.S. <s>nation builders</s> consultants, in that setting up a government structure to force on the people doesn't work. It is the people that need to set up said structure.

As to subgenius' questions: we should remain in positions of authority until a government capable of operating is established, then our role should be rendered to providing aid (think Red Cross) until the remainder of their service infrastructure is established. That might be months, but unfortunately, it might be years. This, of course, will cost a lot of money and potentially more U.S. lives. But it's the right thing to do, considering the mess we've made.

[The Fool]

There is a quote attributed to Saddam, it may be apocryphal but it sounds accurate. He said that Allah only made 3 mistakes when he created the world...these mistakes were the creation of Persians, Jews, and flies.

Now if I were a Kurd, I would seriously want to know who was responsible for this wanker being in charge of a nation...especially the nation where I lived. If you are looking for someone to feel sorry for in this tragic circus...look to the Kurds. Maybe America could add them to the list of people who deserve a homeland? Just asking.....

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by The Fool
There is a quote attributed to Saddam, it may be apocryphal but it sounds accurate. He said that Allah only made 3 mistakes when he created the world...these mistakes were the creation of Persians, Jews, and flies.

Now if I were a Kurd, I would seriously want to know who was responsible for this wanker being in charge of a nation...especially the nation where I lived. If you are looking for someone to feel sorry for in this tragic circus...look to the Kurds. Maybe America could add them to the list of people who deserve a homeland? Just asking.....

Any leader that stands above a crowd and fires a rifle in the air as a display to show he is 'of the people' needs to be removed. The same with any army, organization or entity that celebrates by firing weapons. There is something very wrong with the basic mind-set that does those things.

[Tmy]

You cant have a democracy in a country with large and powerful ethnic/religious rivals. They wont get along. In fact they will use the democratic process to separate themselves.

What do you think the kurdish reps will do first in the Iraqi Congress? Try to create an independant state!

Even when you have afairly homogenius population there is still trouble. Even the US had a civil war. What chance does Iraq have.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Tmy
You cant have a democracy in a country with large and powerful ethnic/religious rivals. They wont get along. In fact they will use the democratic process to separate themselves.

What do you think the kurdish reps will do first in the Iraqi Congress? Try to create an independant state!

Even when you have afairly homogenius population there is still trouble. Even the US had a civil war. What chance does Iraq have.

I might be wrong, but I think Iraq is going to be years of un-reported strife, and whatever administration is stuck with it will just have to declare 'Mission Accomplished' and scale back involvement (like with the PI & Korea) even though there will be criticism and a risk to whatever party does it. What happens internally after they are set up after Saddam being removed, well, that's internal. There are still problems in Korea 50 years after stepping in. The mid-east has had problems in the region for over 2,000 years.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
And so an answer to the rest of the questions?
"...how long we should stay, how much we should spend, and how many lives we should sacrifice...."

We shouldn't, none, and none.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Are you saying you want McDonalds to run Iraq?

They can't do any worse a job than anyone else has recently...

[Tmy]

Howard STern had a good Idea.

We should hire Saddam to run Iraq. This time without the murder, torture, and rape rooms. I mean who else is more qualified to get Iraq undercontrol.?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I agree with this statement. The problem with it is that it's not relevant, because the Iraqis DO want a democracy.

They do? Then why are they encountering so much resistance setting one up?

Look around the world; there are a lot of different ways to set up a democracy. Even if your claim is true, what kind of democracy do they want? Because it apparently doesn't jive with the kind of democracy George III wants to set up over there.

The rest of your post is of dubious relevance. I'm not sure if you're in this boat, but I find it amazingly patronizing of some critics who claim on the one hand that we have no right to choose a form of government for others, then turn around and claim that the Iraqis aren't capable of democracy on the other (implying that they can't even choose for themselves, those silly little natives).

When did I say they couldn't choose for themselves? My argument is to LET them choose for themselves and stop trying to force one particular way on them! And from what I can tell, the way they would apparently choose to do it (and the only way that really makes sense) is to make Iraq a republic, with states divided along tribal lines. A small, central, Constitutional government could make sure these tribes in their states share their resources peacefully and protect each of them from rogue actions by another. For the most part, each state would be left alone to govern itself how it wants, thus removing probably 90%+ of the need for a tribe to want to sieze power.

Of course, that is one thing Bush et al WON'T let them do.

[Samus]

shanek: A small, central, Constitutional government could make sure these tribes in their states share their resources peacefully and protect each of them from rogue actions by another. pfft, you mean a limited federal government and more levity for states? That's un-American!

Er, wait...

;)

[Tmy]

Is it fair to say Islam is not compatible with Democracy? What religion is compatable with democracy???? Most religions are run like dictatorships.

I grew up Roman catholic and believe me the church really isnt interested in the will of the people. They are a good 100 years behind the times. In my parts there was a big outcry about the chruch abuse scandle. They parishioners were all but ignored by the higher ups. Church groups that were forming in responce to all the allegations were then not allowed to meet on church grounds. All they wanted to do was make things better but the powers that be dont want to hear it.

I think you need a strong church/state separation of its going to work.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

They do? Then why are they encountering so much resistance setting one up?


The question is, is it a majority of people who are resisting the creation of a democracy? Or is it a small (but vocal) minority? And how many of the people resisting are actually from Iraq?

If the majority really do want democracy (of some type), but the western world says "too much resistance, lets pull out", is that really letting Iraq 'choose its own path'?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
If the majority really do want democracy (of some type), but the western world says "too much resistance, lets pull out", is that really letting Iraq 'choose its own path'?

How wouldn't it be? After the American revolution, we didn't need anyon else coming in and saying how we should set up our own government. And it was set up with a lot of opposition from many American citizens, who wanted things like state religions etc.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


How wouldn't it be?

Because you'd be letting a minority (the faction with the most guns, or the most willingness to be ruthless, who may not even be from Iraq) decide on the form of government.

Originally posted by shanek

After the American revolution, we didn't need anyon else coming in and saying how we should set up our own government. And it was set up with a lot of opposition from many American citizens, who wanted things like state religions etc.

Different century, different circumstances.
- Better weapons and better media coverage now; Now, 'resistance' fighters can cause more damage, and have their actions displayed to a wider audience
- Better transportation now, easier for foreign insurgents to get into the fight
- More interested parties. Yes, there were people in the US who had problems with the way the government was set up, and Britian may have wanted to interfere, but compare that to Iraq where everyone and their dog seems to want to influence Iraq (either to make it democratic or make it a dictatorship.)
- Higher stakes in the current conflict, both economically (due to oil), and politically
- Different religious beliefs; I rather suspect that people with Islamic fundamentalist beliefs are more willing to resort to violence than the Christians of the late 1700s in the U.S.

And keep in mind that the American experience has not been perfect... after all, you did go through a civil war about a century ago.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Different century, different circumstances.

But the same concept. It simply does not work to try and achieve this through force. It has been tried many times, and every single time it has been a complete failure.