Iraq after a war

[DanishDynamite]

Assuming for the moment that a war will be waged against Iraq, what exactly is the long-term goal?

The short term goal is presumably getting control of Iraq and ousting Saddam and his cronies. But what is the plan after that? Rewriting the Iraqi Constitution and creating a democracy? Has anyone seen any post-war plans?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Assuming for the moment that a war will be waged against Iraq, what exactly is the long-term goal?

The short term goal is presumably getting control of Iraq and ousting Saddam and his cronies. But what is the plan after that? Rewriting the Iraqi Constitution and creating a democracy? Has anyone seen any post-war plans?

Still under debate: The Powell/State Department camp says to install another strongman, the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Cheney camp says to build a democracy.

MattJ

[Doctor X]

Has anyone seen any post-war plans?


Yes, actually . . . wait . . . there are some men at my door. . . .

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Right, thought it was funnier than, "the White House refuses to return my calls."

I am interested where the claim that Powell/State Department wants another strongman comes from.

--J.D.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Right, thought it was funnier than, "the White House refuses to return my calls."

I am interested where the claim that Powell/State Department wants another strongman comes from.

--J.D.

I've read it a few places and heard it on one of the Sunday morning shows, spoken without starting a controversy. I wish I could find you a source.

In the meantime, I think this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html) is what DD was looking for.

Page 3 seems to dispute my claim, but keep in mind that the New York Times loves Powell and detests Wolfowitz/Cheney.

[BrotherBluto]

DD,

Good topic! This is my chief concern in the whole debate over going to war with Iraq.

The only reasonable model I can think of, as an admitted layman in these matters, would be something akin to what happened in post WWII Japan. But even this has it's inherent problems. Could we remove Hussein and his leaders and establish in their place some kind of constitutional democracy? If we could, how well would that function in Iraq's culture? Would something like that be construed by the Iraqi people and their neighbors as the West imposing it's beliefs on them by force?

In WWII the allies had a few years to consider such issues and come up with a plan. If there is war with Iraq we will not have such a luxury, as I suspect that hostilities will not last that long.

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks, aero. This was what I was looking for.

The plans described include the creation of a democratic Iraq. Being a pro-democracy kinda guy, it is tempting to say "the end justifies the means".

I feel my resistance to a war evaporating. :eek:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by BrotherBluto
Could we remove Hussein and his leaders and establish in their place some kind of constitutional democracy? If we could, how well would that function in Iraq's culture? Would something like that be construed by the Iraqi people and their neighbors as the West imposing it's beliefs on them by force?

In WWII the allies had a few years to consider such issues and come up with a plan. If there is war with Iraq we will not have such a luxury, as I suspect that hostilities will not last that long.
I can't say for sure whether it is possible to establish a democracy in Iraq, but there are a few things the pro-democracy forces have in their advantage:

- Yes, a war will be short, but the U.S. and the world have had years to figure out what they really want done (ever since the last gulf war). They just haven't done anything about it.
- Unlike a decade or 2 ago, there is no Soviet Union running around trying to install communist dictatorships around the world. (When they were a threat, the U.S. sometimes had to support their own dictatorships just to counteract them.)

[DanishDynamite]

BrotherBluto:Good topic! Thanks.
This is my chief concern in the whole debate over going to war with Iraq. Well, I wouldn't say it's my chief concern, but it is very important.

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but does anyone know the current situation in Afghanistan, where promises of long-term involvement were also made?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

I feel my resistance to a war evaporating. :eek:

i would also like to see saddam hussein removed from power, but not at the expense of the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civilians, and not by a regime which has massive vested interests in gaining control over oil rich nations, and which has already proven it has no regard for the human rights record of any country it does business with.

If the US want Saddam removed form power they should throw their weight behind the UN instead of constantly undermining them, the UN must come up with a clear plan for restoring democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people, and some consistency should be offered by at least cancelling arms sales to countries with human rights records as brutal as the current Iraqi regime.

It would also be fitting if Cheney and Rumsfeld were held accountable for their part in propping up and supplying weapons to the Iraqi dictator in the first place. But of course the hypocrisy of the situation demands that we only be reminded of the immorality of our enemies.


Originally posted by Segnosaur
there is no Soviet Union running around trying to install communist dictatorships around the world. (When they were a threat, the U.S. sometimes had to support their own dictatorships just to counteract them


The US supported way more brutal dictators than the Soviet Union. You only have to look at Latin America to see this. Its hard to think of a single Latin American country where the US hasn't either propped up or installed a disgusting military dictator since the start of the cold war.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
.

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but does anyone know the current situation in Afghanistan, where promises of long-term involvement were also made?

Yes. Peacekeeping soldiers are stationed in Kabul, where relative peace and order is maintained.

The North of the country including Mazar-e-Sharif is controlled by a lovely character by the name of General Rashid Dostam (http://www.afghancriminals.com/dostam.htm) who enjoys baking his opponents to death in metal containers and running prisoners over with his tanks.

The west of the country, including the city of Herat is controlled by Ismail Khan (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/herat1105.htm) , an old style warlord who enforces "celibacy checks" on Afghan women, his other crimes include arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, and extortion. Donald Rumsfeld met Khan last year and described him as "an appealing person."
Which is no surprise, he also had nice words to say about fledgling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the mid 1980s http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

In charge of Kandahar is Gul Agha Sherzai. Boss of the eastern province of Nangahar is Nezrat Ali. They are both old style islamic warlords with no respect for human rights.
Never mind though, at least the building of the oil pipeline is underway.

[Doctor X]

Sorry, Gangsta Original:

I must correct some things. [He is so noble. . . .--Ed.]

but not at the expense of the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civilians, . . .

Understood, seriously, however, if you believe Pollack, Hussein has killed far more during his regime and if he continues as he has in the past he will kill far more innocent people--current tally about a million, though that may include Iranian soldiers--than a Gulf War II. At least the US, UK, et al will not target civilians.

. . . and not by a regime which has massive vested interests in gaining control over oil rich nations, . . .

As indicated in another thread [Argumentum ad ignorantium--Ed.] Quiet! as indicated in another thread, if the primary purpose of the US was "oil" it would have taken Baghdad during the last war. Better yet, it would have worked with Saadam to continue discounted oil. Indeed, it would argue for opening the oil fields now.

However, France and Russia do have these "vested interests" which may not be easy for them to fulfill if the current regime goes away.

. . . and which has already proven it has no regard for the human rights record of any country it does business with.

Ipse dixit with just a dash of Well Poisoning--not to change this into an argument of the US human rights record, but other than that embarassing support of polyester in the Seventies, it stands rather well if not better than other countries.

Nevertheless, whether or not you agree on that point does not make the American record anywhere near as attrocious as Saadams current record.

Furthermore, none of the UN security council members can point to a "clean" record. Indeed, none of the UN--save for a Bushman or two--can claim a "clean" record.

That having been written, we still have to deal with the problem at hand.

I should also mention Libiya . . . Lybia . . . Libi . . . the Country Under Khadaafi . . . Quadaafi . . . Kada[Get on with it!--Ed.] heading the human rights section in the UN!

If the US want Saddam removed form power they should throw their weight behind the UN. . . .

They did and what happened? You see now what happened.

. . . the UN must come up with a clear plan for restoring democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people, . . .

The UN has failed to do this for any country I am aware of.

. . . and some consistency should be offered by at least cancelling arms sales to countries with human rights records as brutal as the current Iraqi regime.

Well, that will not work because the French and the Russians--who have a minor role in the UN--sell weapons to these countries.

It would also be fitting if Cheney and Rumsfeld were held accountable for their part in propping up and supplying weapons to the Iraqi dictator in the first place.

I would call that a separate issue--since it does nothing about the present situation. Nevertheless I understand your frustration. However, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others had no real love from Saadam. He was "buttressed" as a bullwark against Iran. Sure, if you believe Pollack's rendering, administrations might have felt they could moderate Iraq, but that delusion went away with his treatment of the Iranians.

The US supported way more brutal dictators than the Soviet Union.

I am afraid that is subject to some debate. These "who has the worse bastard" debates become a little pointless--a mudering scumbag is a murdering scumbag. The Soviet Union has . . . um . . . you know . . . STALIN to answer for, as well as the Eastern block, Cuba, and, probably, Des Moines. Did the US support murdering bastards? Yes. To quote Eisenhower: "Sure Chang Kai Chek is a son of a bitch, but he is OUR son of a bitch." The French, English, and just about anyone else, has "dirty hands."

Very well, but it does not remove the current problem of Saadam and what he is doing.

Indeed, to extend your understandable criticisms, it is far better that countries like the US, UK, Poland(!), et cetera would rather get rid of a Scumbag than support them. As much as France and Russia, and even Germany, deserve some criticism for their lack of fortitude, at least we are not in a period where they are sending "military advisors" to Iraq!

Its hard to think of a single Latin American country where the US hasn't either propped up or installed a disgusting military dictator since the start of the cold war. [/B]

Castro?

[You forget the detrious that Castro replaced.--Ed.]

Right, nevertheless, we still have to deal with this problem.

--J.D.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by originalgagster

i would also like to see saddam hussein removed from power, but not at the expense of the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civilians, and not by a regime which has massive vested interests in gaining control over oil rich nations, and which has already proven it has no regard for the human rights record of any country it does business with.

As opposed to the thousands if Iraqis who die yearly because they oppose Saddam? A war will lead to Iraqi and American deaths, and some of those dead will be civilians. However, the removal of Saddam (and the installation of democracy) will lead to fewer deaths in the long term. (Heck, even if the U.S. doesn't turn Iraq into a full democracy, even a more benevolent dictatorship will be better.)

As for the 'oil' motive.... the U.S. has had no problems buying Oil from dictatorships before. Why would they have a problem buying oil from Iraq under Saddam? (That kind of diffuses your "war for oil" argument.)
Originally posted by originalgagster

If the US want Saddam removed form power they should throw their weight behind the UN instead of constantly undermining them, the UN must come up with a clear plan for restoring democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people, and some consistency should be offered by at least cancelling arms sales to countries with human rights records as brutal as the current Iraqi regime.

First of all, a large number of countries in the U.N. are corrupt dictatorships with bad human rights records. Can you really expect representatives of such an organization to come up with the best way to ensure freedom and democracy? (Remember, this is the organization that thinks Libya is a good representative of human rights.) NATO is a better organization for guaranteeing freedom in the world.

Secondly, the U.N. does not sell arms to ANY country... other countries (and companies) do. The U.N. can declare that "No country will ever sell arms to Iraq", but that won't stop countries like North Korea or France or Germany from selling them 'illegal' arms.
Originally posted by originalgagster

It would also be fitting if Cheney and Rumsfeld were held accountable for their part in propping up and supplying weapons to the Iraqi dictator in the first place. But of course the hypocrisy of the situation demands that we only be reminded of the immorality of our enemies.

As I've said many times before... Most Iraqi arms are not U.S. made. The U.S. supported Iraq for a short time only (during the Iran/Iraq war).

Of course, what do they do if they get into Iraq, and find that France and Germany have been selling stuff to Iraq that they shouldn't have? Are you going to complain about those countries supporting brutal dictatorships? Or will the anti-war faction keep their mouths shut about it?
Originally posted by originalgagster

The US supported way more brutal dictators than the Soviet Union.
Which may be true, but it does NOT change the issue... The U.S. used the excuse of communist expansion to justify supporting dictatorships. (The relative numbers are not the issue here.) Without the communist threat, they won't have the need or justification to install another dictatorship in Iraq, so there is a better chance of Democracy taking hold than there would have been 2 decades ago.

[Mike B.]

I am not going to argue about "my dictator is better than yours."

The idea though the US supported "way" worse dictatorships than the Soviet Union is a bit of a stretch...

The Eastern Bloc (and periodically crushing Eastern European nations that wanted to assert themselves i.e. Hungary, Czechslovakia, and Poland through proxy) consider that we didn't see NATO tanks roll across France as they pulled out of NATO.

[Advocate]

I see at least one major problem with establishing a democracy in Iraq without at least some form of interim government. In a Muslim country under a brutal dictator, people often turn to an extremist form of Islam - Iran and Afghanistan for example. Right now, if the people of Iraq voted for a new government it would likely end up a militant Islamist state. The whole reason Saddam was propped up by the US in the first place was to avoid the spread of the Iranian revolution. We might well end up with a greater threat than the one we destroyed. Now if we were to set up an interim government that would give Iraq peace and stability for a few years before electing its successor, then that might give the radicalism a chance to die down. But that does mean being willing to prop up the economy of Iraq for several years to allow this government to survive the challenges it will undoubtedly face. It also means gaining and maintaining the trust of the people of Iraq that the interim government will not turn into a permanent one against their wishes. I believe this is what was supposed to be done in Afghanistan. I am not sure how good the follow-through has been. It is also similar to what was done after World War 2.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I've read it a few places and heard it on one of the Sunday morning shows, spoken without starting a controversy. I wish I could find you a source.

In the meantime, I think this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html) is what DD was looking for.

Page 3 seems to dispute my claim, but keep in mind that the New York Times loves Powell and detests Wolfowitz/Cheney.

which makes you wonder why there is such haste to start something when they don't even know what outcome they want.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Assuming for the moment that a war will be waged against Iraq, what exactly is the long-term goal?

Obviously that is not the U.S. concern. First it's lives they want then it's oil, then once the oil is processed we get ripped off at the pumps by the U.S. corps. That is the what will happen as for political interests that want approval for war something like Afganistan (by no means is that something to be proud of- since the government is in horrible shape to say the least).

[The Don]

I would say "has anyone asked the Iraqi people wat they want" but of course there won't be one single answer.

Currently the oppisition is united against Saddam, with him gone I'd be worried about a gradual Balkanisation of Iraq based upon tribal/religious lines which cannot be a good thing for Middle East stability.

[CWL]

[quick reflection]

I think the example of post war Germany and the Marshall program shows the importance of aiding defeated enemy states in order to create stability and thus avoiding future military conflicts.

[/quick reflection]

[aerocontrols]

Via The Independent (http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/johann_hari/story.jsp?story=376121)

It is perfectly legitimate, however, for you to be sceptical about the US's willingness to build a democracy in Iraq. Isn't this the country that describes Ariel Sharon as "a man of peace" and offers effusive words of praise to the House of Saud? But we do not need to talk in the abstract about the political structures that will follow Saddam's Baathist totalitarianism. There is an existing example that demonstrates clearly what will be built. Following the Gulf War, northern Iraq – where the Kurds were sheltering in the mountains from Saddam's thugs – was not handed back to Baghdad. It became an independent statelet guarded by, yes, US and British military might.

What does it look like 10 years later? Is it governed by another mini-Saddam circa 1980, a cheap pro-American puppet? No. It is a self-determining democracy. It elects, freely, its own leaders. It has freedom of speech and of the press (in Sulaymaniyah alone, there are 138 media outlets, including literary magazines and radio channels). It lives under the rule of law, upheld by both male and female judges.

As Barham Salih, the prime minister of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government in Sulaymaniyah, explained recently: "In 1991, we had 804 schools. Today we have 2,705. We started with one university in Arbil in 1991; today we have three. In 10 years of self-government, we built twice as many hospitals as was built for us in seven decades. Then we had 548 doctors. Today we have 1,870 doctors. I'm not going to tell you that everything is rosy... but it's remarkable what we have achieved."

If it were not for US military power, this democratic entity would not have existed for the last 10 years. Without US military power, it will not be extended throughout Iraq. Of course, it would be far better if we could establish a democratic Iraq without a war that will kill many thousands of innocent people. War is horrendous, but a small number of things are even worse: Saddam's tyranny is one. Has the left really forgotten the fundamental principle that it is worth fighting to free 23 million people from tyranny and to help them to build democracy? What has become of us?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Advocate
In a Muslim country under a brutal dictator, people often turn to an extremist form of Islam - Iran and Afghanistan for example. Right now, if the people of Iraq voted for a new government it would likely end up a militant Islamist state I don't know if this is true. My impression is that Iraqis are far more educated and secular than Iranians or Afghanis. They also, I think, will have a much more immediate expectation of economic prosperity after Saddam's gone, and fundamantalism doesn't exactly help the economy.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by CWL
[quick reflection]

I think the example of post war Germany and the Marshall program shows the importance of aiding defeated enemy states in order to create stability and thus avoiding future military conflicts.

[/quick reflection]

Thanks! That's one of the points I was trying to make, but clearer and more succinct that I said it.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I don't know if this is true. My impression is that Iraqis are far more educated and secular than Iranians or Afghanis. They also, I think, will have a much more immediate expectation of economic prosperity after Saddam's gone, and fundamantalism doesn't exactly help the economy.

You may be right. On the other hand, an interim government and an equivalent to the Marshall Plan would allow that prosperity to return, at least to some extent, before the elections take place. I believe it is very important that the Iraqis have hope for their future after the war. I think the examples of both Germany and Japan after WW2 would be good ones to follow.

[Thumper]

Ok. I'll weigh in here with my suggestion for post-war Iraq. france and Russia are worried about their oil contracts right now. That, and the amount of French military devices, seems to be the biggest reason the French are backing Saddam at this point. And make no mistake about it, they are doing so.

Let France be the nation-builder. It's been shown that the French flavor of democracy is much more portable than the American style. France has had a lot of experience building nations (before, during, and after decolonialism).

Let them rebuild Iraq. It will make them feel more secure that their oil interests are safe. It will also quell Anti-American voices in the world.

We go in, oust Saddam and his elite. France goes in and rebuilds the nation, with liberal help from any and all.

How's that for an idea?

Will it fly? Just like the French Army. lol But it is something we should explore seriously.

[Doctor X]

I had a history teacher who observed that the United States has, "never lost a war, but has never won a peace." This general rule rather holds--even for Vietnam.

The "what next" question is a legitimate one. The US and Co. could really screw it up. People need to realize that, perhaps, winning the war will be the easy part.

However, I hope the US and Co. do not make decisions about war based on whether or not the "peace will be easy." I believe there is a recognition of the need to stabilize the country.

One of the oppositions to war comes from Gulf states concerned that the US and Co. are not serious. A protracted Vietnamesqe war just destabilizes the region.

Iraq was supported somewhat by the US directly and indirectly as a check to Iran. Iran has moderated somewhat; however, it would be in the interest of everyone if Iraq continued to serve as a buffer. If a democracy it removes some of the understandable fear from Iranians that Iraq wants revenge for the war it "won" and it also serves as an alternative to their current regime. If nations support the efforts of Iraq, they should support the efforts of Iran.

However, again, the US and Co. can still screw this up. One thing that can help, now that I think of it, is if those who preach democracy keep on the pressure to establish democracy after the conflict. It is easier for politicians to make hard decisions if they have political support. Sad that they need it, but that is reality.

--J.D.

[Michael Redman]

I don't want the French to nation-build in Iraq because I want very much to go visit that ancient land, and the less like the French the Iraqis act, the better. :D