Iraq=Japan=Germany.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I just heard Paul Wolfowitz in a McNeil PBS interview state that the outcome of introducing "Democracy " in Iraq is the equivalent Japan and Germany after WW2. Does anyone believe that , I think it's astonishingly naive.
Japan had the emperor state to the Japanese people that the war was wrong ( thanks to MacArthur)Completely severing both political and religious reasons for it. The emperor was god so all pretext of deity was removed not only by the fact that he made a speech , but by the fact that they were defeated..

The Germans were completely beaten and sub-divided by the NATO countries and the Soviet Union Which also fell later . The people there mouthed the platitudes of comrade Stalin and others, but really wanted toilet paper.

Trying to induce a completely foreign concept (democracy) onto the heart of the middle East without regards to the historical religious, ethnic, tribal differences is like trying to stabilize 1 room in a house that is burning down around you.The religious context is domonint. Imagine if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ran the state.........sorry didn't mean to scare You

Thoughts?

This is honest to god true, my IE spell when came across Wolfowitz sugessted "dimwit " , he's anything but.

[Mr Manifesto]

As far as I'm concerned, it's all so much hasty spin-doctoring and damage control.

[Skeptic]

I just heard Paul Wolfowitz in a McNeil PBS interview state that the outcome of introducing "Democracy " in Iraq is the equivalent Japan and Germany after WW2. Does anyone believe that , I think it's astonishingly naive.

Well, they're alike in one sense: in both Germany and Iraq, know-it-all "experts" were totally convinced the USA is "losing the peace", "democracy is impossible", "USA will become despised", etc., more or less from the moment the shooting stopped. See Tony's link:

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

[TillEulenspiegel]

Hey that's a really great link. The fact tho was I was comparing the relatively homogeneous nature of those countries and the fractious Middle East.

Conquerers will always have a rough go trying to transform a society, but when viewed in the context of a religious doctrine that ignores borders and other dynamic societal forces, it is a losing proposition. The schism that exists between the Sunni and Shiite Moslem's , cannot and will not be resolved by a hasty application if what we view as "Law".

We cannot repeat the same mistakes we made in the crusades or the artificial division of Palestine, Bosnia,?Ireland?.
Much of the problem is is our approch..This is our system. You'll love it . I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.You cannot switch a culture that has existed for 1200 Yrs. in a 100 day war.


This board acting funny or is it just Me?

[Tony]

I understand what you are saying TillEulenspiegel, and I agree. What do you think we should do to liberalize and bring democracy to Iraq?

[epepke]

The comparison seems to me a bit silly, because the Allies really destroyed and conquered and occupied Germany and Japan. Whereas the US and Britain made this half-hearted "we come to liberate" thing the center of the invasion of Iraq. I was against invading Iraq, but doing it in a half-hearted way is worse than not doing it in the first place and worse than doing it properly.

[corplinx]

Yes, religion is so bad that when baghdad fell the first thing that happened was an outpouring of religious looting.

The number one diversion in baghdad is the horse track.

Porn is big entertainment too.

[Chaos]

There is quite a difference between Germany post-WW2 and Iraq after last year´s war.

About Iraq, Americans were told, "we´ll just roll over their military, and then the people will line the streets to cheer us as liberators."
On the other hand, nobody ever thought defeating Nazi Germany would be easy, especially not while there was also that war with Japan.

Iraq was basically "shocked and awed" by the US military. The war (the part fighting against the Army and Republican Guards) took about five or six weeks.
Germany, on the other hand, was slowly and thoroughly ground to dust. Even if you only count the part from D-Day on, the war took almost a year.

For a war that conquered a country of about 25 millions, the Iraq war took a relatively light toll both in lives and in infrastructure. The estimates I have seen range from about 5,000 to 15,000 deaths - let´s make that 1 in 2,000 Iraqis.
I don´t remember the exact death toll for Germany, and I don´t have references at hand, but including all the soldiers who died on the eastern front and before US involvement, I think the death toll for WW2 is somewhere in the vicinity of 1 in 20 Germans. And if you have ever seens photos of the major Germany cities right after WW2, you know they were in ruins.

In short, Germany after WW2 was finished - the people didn´t have the spirit to resist, not after almost six years of war, losing most of their belongings and five percent of the population. All they wanted was to start anew and build new lives.
Had Germany been in a state like Iraq is today, maybe Germans would have resisted the American occupation - and back then, it was an occupation of enemy territory. I remember my teacher telling me that, when my hometown was occupied in ´45, the US garrison commander announced that for every American killed by German partisans, ten of the town´s citizens would be shot. (As far as I know, back then that was standard practice even for the more civilized armies)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Trying to induce a completely foreign concept (democracy) onto the heart of the middle East without regards to the historical religious, ethnic, tribal differences is like trying to stabilize 1 room in a house that is burning down around you.The religious context is domonint. Imagine if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ran the state.........sorry didn't mean to scare You


The comparison is of course an oversimplification (gasp! a public figure oversimplifying the situation in a TV interview!), but our job there is essentially the same. We need to introduce democracy, and we need to purge those parts of their culture that stand in the way of them becoming functioning democracies. Yes, Japan had a lot of central control, which helped things a lot, and that is indeed missing in Iraq. But we still needed to purge their society of a very long-standing and deep-rooted tradition of militarism, and that didn't just go away by decree of the emperor. Iraq may indeed be more difficult, but I've never been one to believe one should not do a taks simply because it is difficult. And I do not think any group of people are somehow unsuited to democracy - they seem to be getting the hang of it pretty quickly. In fact, the Europeans could probably learn a thing or two about how to write a constitution from the Iraqis. Some westerners took the Shias' delay in signing the constitution as some sort of sign of failure, but they DID sign, without modification - it was just posturing, the kind that happens in democracies, and it wasn't any more silly than the texas democrats who fled the state to halt the republican redistricting plan.

I don't claim that this is going to be easy, but it's possible, and the greatest risk in not their failure but our losing the will to see it through.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Germany and Japan were defeated because of the corrallary effect of the bombs and soldiers on their countries. The real defeat came when the people of those countries realized that their entire history and culture would be erased from the planet. As Germany was 'ground to dust', Japan faced nuclear fires they believed would make them just a memory. The spiritual and cultural infrastructure of those countries was effectively destroyed. Not so in Iraq.

[Michael Redman]

Yes, Germany and Japan were more completely destroyed, but, on the other hand, the vast majority of Iraqis seem quite glad to be rid of Saddam, unlike in those cases.

The question asked, however, is about the nature of the populations. Japan and Germany had more or less homogenous cultures, and they didn't resist being built up into unified nations. The Iraqis are several distinct and conflicting cultures, and many have no interest in being neighbors. This may turn out more like Yugoslavia than Germany. It seems today that Iraqis are willing, for the most part, to try to build a unified nation. We'll see what things are like in 10 years.

I don't buy the argument that democracy isn't right for the middle east, muslims, arabs, or whatever. I think people everywhere want to determine their own fates. The dictatorships around them are not going to convince the Iraqis the abandon the opportunity they have for democracy. I see no reason that the lack of democratic tradition must doom a new democracy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I just heard Paul Wolfowitz in a McNeil PBS interview state that the outcome of introducing "Democracy " in Iraq is the equivalent Japan and Germany after WW2. Does anyone believe that , I think it's astonishingly naive.

Well, they're alike in one sense: in both Germany and Iraq, know-it-all "experts" were totally convinced the USA is "losing the peace", "democracy is impossible", "USA will become despised", etc., more or less from the moment the shooting stopped. See Tony's link:

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

It was the disaster that was developing in Europe after the end of WWII that was the inspiration for the Marshall Plan. It wasn't something that went into action as soon as the war ended. It was something that was implented because conditions were exactly what that article described.

Dubya had the notion that

a) Oil would substitute for the costs of the Marshall Plan
b) there would not be the disorder that is currently being experienced that others predicted
c) That guerilla warfare and terrorism would not be of the magnitude it currently is.

After WWII, there was nothing like the events that are currently in progress in Iraq.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
the vast majority of Iraqis seem quite glad to be rid of Saddam,

Is this true? THe last poll I saw didnt ask this directly, it asked if things were better before the war. The numbers were closer to 1/2 rather than some big majority.

Iraq confuses me. Like the constant bombings. Many Iraqis are being targeted and killed. Why arent the people rising up against theses insurgents??? Turning them in??

saddam was a despot. Im thinking lots of Iraqis didnt mind his behavior cause it focused on a select group of Saddams foes. Its an "Thats OK cause its not me" thought process. Its a typical view of govt.

This happens in the states too. Patriot act stomping our rights. "Thats OK cause the govt will never come to get me"

[a_unique_person]

I don't think there was ever much doubt that most of them would be glad to see the last of Saddam. I just think that they don't necessarily like the process of getting rid of him.l

[Tmy]

There wasnt much doubt that WMD's would be found either. Im trying not to assume anything when it comes to the whacky Iraqis.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tmy

Iraq confuses me. Like the constant bombings. Many Iraqis are being targeted and killed. Why arent the people rising up against theses insurgents??? Turning them in??


What makes you think they aren't?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2004/March/middleeast_March324.xml&section=middleeast&col=

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is this true? THe last poll I saw didnt ask this directly, it asked if things were better before the war. The numbers were closer to 1/2 rather than some big majority.From the report I heard on the BBC poll, many of those who answered that their lives are not better than a year ago nevertheless are glad Saddam was overthrown. I'm assuming that virtually all who are better off are glad he's gone. Either way, the contrast to Germany and Japan is quite glaring. There were not sizable portions of the population in those countries who felt that things were better after the allies took over, and were glad their governments were overthrown.

[TillEulenspiegel]

M.Redman :"I don't buy the argument that democracy isn't right for the middle east, muslims, arabs, or whatever. I think people everywhere want to determine their own fates."

Well that's part of the problem. We look at life through the filter of our own experience and expectations. It's not whether WE think it's right, it's how the various parties in that country view the prospect of a secular democracy.To this date that support is iffy at best . The Kurds want a Kurdistan , the Sunnis want their patron back and the Shiite's want a monolithic theocracy with the preeminent law being the Sharia .All one has to do is look at the mess that was the interim constitution and see that almost didn't occur because of 1 Mullah.

Religion and ethnic nationalism is the force that drives those people. All You have to do is look next door to Iran and see what happens when those qualities dominate.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I just saw a show on History Channel last night about Saddam and the torture jails, etc. They showed an old b/w video of him with an assembly of his government staff being culled of 'traitors'. They showed people being led away by guards. Stunned staff members were crying, shaking, suddenly praising Saddam in the hope they would be passed over. The remaining people had to participate in the execution of their former colleagues.

Just give them democracy and leave. It's better than anything else.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Religion and ethnic nationalism is the force that drives those people. All You have to do is look next door to Iran and see what happens when those qualities dominate. That's not the way I see things. To me, it looks like the majority of people in both countries want democracy. It's the institutions, mostly religious, that do not. The institutions have a lot of power because the people are faithful, but it doesn't appear that most of the people are very happy with religious leaders taking political control, and would prefer true democracy.

I should say, I'm talking about theocracy vs. democracy. Ethnic considerations are different. As I said, this may be a new Yugoslavia.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Tmy


Is this true? THe last poll I saw didnt ask this directly, it asked if things were better before the war. The numbers were closer to 1/2 rather than some big majority.

Iraq confuses me. Like the constant bombings. Many Iraqis are being targeted and killed. Why arent the people rising up against theses insurgents??? Turning them in??

saddam was a despot. Im thinking lots of Iraqis didnt mind his behavior cause it focused on a select group of Saddams foes. Its an "Thats OK cause its not me" thought process. Its a typical view of govt.

This happens in the states too. Patriot act stomping our rights. "Thats OK cause the govt will never come to get me"

Of course. Most people are sheep.

But even an overwhelming majority wouldn't make the situations analogous, because just as a small number of people can maintain a government such as Saddam's, an even smaller number can disrupt the process of arriving at a Republican form of government.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

The Kurds want a Kurdistan , the Sunnis want their patron back and the Shiite's want a monolithic theocracy with the preeminent law being the Sharia .All one has to do is look at the mess that was the interim constitution and see that almost didn't occur because of 1 Mullah.


Democracies have competing interests, this is not new, and in fact it is when there are such competing interests that democracy is most useful. The Iraqis are not stupid, they know how important this is, and they realize that the cost of anything else is simply too high. The various groups all know that they aren't going to get everything they want, but for the first time that's OK, because the losers in a democracy still walk away from the struggle, unlike under Saddam.

As for the constitution, I've read it, and it isn't bad at all. The Europeans could learn a thing or two from it, their proposed EU constitution is a disaster by comparison. As for Sistani's posturing, do not give it more credit than it deserves. It was posturing, nothing more: he wants to place himself in opposition to the US because he wants to be seen as an advocate of Iraqis and not a toady for us and because he naturally wants to get as much benefit for the Shia as possible, but he has no intention of scuttling the process, he's quite aware that we need to succeed. That's why the constitution was signed without any changes. In the scheme of things, that walkout was milder than the texas democrats who fled the state over a redistricting fight.


Religion and ethnic nationalism is the force that drives those people. All You have to do is look next door to Iran and see what happens when those qualities dominate.

Exactly. The Iraqis can see this too, and they're determined not to repeat Iran's mistakes.

[Ladewig]

Iraq is the equivalent Japan and Germany after WW2.

I'm not sure that post-war Germany was equivalent to post-war Japan. Neither strikes me as similar to Iraq.