Suggested strategies for bringing democracy to Iraq

[Tansy_Gold]

I brought this up in another thread and someone suggested I start my own thread on this topic. I'm not much of a thread-starter.

I think most of us agree that we want to bring our troops home, that the whole invasion and subsequent occupation have gone terribly wrong for all parties concerned, and the chimpster's request for eight-seven billion of our dollars to provide Iraq with rebuilt roads, schools, hospitals, electric power grids, water supply systems, etc. while the working population in this country gets nothing is more than a little unreasonable.

But what are the alternatives? While the honchos are wringing their hands, pounding their fists, or extending their palms, let's put our fingers (and brains) to use and come up with some ideas.

I tossed out the notion of allowing the various factions in Iraq to establish their own "states," somewhat on the blueprint of the U.S. in the 1770s and 80s -- semi-independent provinces or "states" with a confederation or republic or some such central overarching government to regulate things like inter-provincial commerce (oil, especially), currency, national defense, and so on. Each province/state could establish its own cultural personality, while -- with help from the U.S., U.N., etc. -- working out a way to tolerate differences. Balkanization, yes, it is, but isn't that to a certain extent what we have here in the U.S., too?

I'm not positive this would work, obviously. But something along those lines worked for the U.S. in bringing the original colonies together despite their differences. And granted, the issue of slavery did eventually erupt into armed conflict, but maybe we and the Iraqis could learn from that experience???

I dunno. It's a thought. Open for discussion.

Peace,

Tansy Gold, who really is going to reread "A Peace to End All Peace"

[arcane1]

1. what if the Iraqis don't WANT democracy?

suppose they preferred a communist, or socialist arrangement? Isn't it our obligation as human beings, Americans, world citizens, AND as the people who bombed the hell out of them, to grant them the kind of gov't they WANT?

the whole "we must bring them democracy (tm)" arguement is too "white man's burden" to me. There are plenty of countries in this world that are not democracies, do we change them all? If not, why not?

[BeFree]

2. Democracy is the best thing going

All of the world's leading free nations use democracy as a political system.

The thing is, with the current situation in Iraq, the US has an obligation to see it through. As much as I personally think we should have never invaded in the first place, the fact remains, we did.

The American paople are behind bringing democracy to Iraq. What better way to accomplish that than to use our own basis as a guide to overcoming the obstacles faced in Iraq?

Tansy has laid out the basic steps, and as a beleiver in democracy, I think it could work.

A federal system is established by writing and adopting a constitution. The several factions representing different areas of Iraq are formed into states, similar to how the US is set up.

[arcane1]

3. "The American paople are behind bringing democracy to Iraq"

has anyone asked the Iraqis how THEY feel? What if they want their oil and water industries to be run by the state, for example?

America has NO obligation to tell the Iraqis what kind of government to have. None. The only thing we will do is install a US-friendly puppet, and put American corporations in control of their natural resources. That is not bringing democracy, that's stealing.

At the end of the day, the type of governmental system in Iraq is none of our goddamn business.

[BeFree]

5. Until we invaded it was none of our bizz

Now that we destroyed half of the country.... we are obligated to see it to some kind of good ending.

What do you have against democracy? Do you know of a better system? I don't. So let's quickly set up a democracy and then get the hell out. The people of Iraq can then begin making decisions as to what happens next.

Look, the last thing Bushco wants is democracy, in Iraq, or even here at home. I say let's give it to them and make the empire live with it.

[arcane1]

7. I have nothing against democracy

nor have I said so. The flaw in your premise is the impression that it's my choice, my decision. The Iraqi people are the ones to decide.

however, I oppose the idea that the US can just "setup" the system of our choice in Iraq. Who writes their Constitution? Who decides to have a parliament, or a congress, or some other? The list goes on...

it's easy to just SAY we should setup a quick democracy and move on, but in practice, easier said than done. Eventually, we would have to say "look, Iraqis, this is how it shall be". Since the people of Iraq have absolutely NO reason to ever trust an American ever again, I don't see how we can just make them do what we tell them to.

how do you think we should go about "quickly" setting up a democracy and then getting out???

[Jacobin]

10. So, let me get this straight

You are in favor of IMPOSING democracy on countries who don'w want it?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

If an election were forced on Iraq today, most observers predict that they would elect an ayatollah who is a fundamentalist islamic and that they would not care if elections were held in the future.

These things have to be DESIRED and fought for by the people of the country. We can't go "give" them something they haven't sought for themselves and fought for.

The only thing they are fighting for now is to repel the infidel invaders and quite frankly it appears they are succeeeding.

[Tansy_Gold]

8. both communism and socialism can be democracies.

Communism and socialism are ECONOMIC philosophies.

Democracy is a POLITICAL philosophy.

Hence, a nation can have democratic socialism or even democratic communism, or it can have totalitarian socialism or totalitarian communism, etc. etc.

Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Tansy Gold, stepping into teacher mode again.

[Brian Sweat]

9. Democracy is a political system

Communism and Socialism are economic systems.

[tom_paine]

4. Pehaps the Busheviks can use the democracy they stole HERE

and just ship it over there, all packaged up.

Aaaah, who's kidding who. The Busheviks don't want democracy any more for the Iraqi Serfs than they do for the Imperial Subjects of Amerika.

[StandWatie]

6. Iraqi's have to want such a thing

and the US would need to want such a thing and I'm not sure about the first and I'm damn sure the the US doesn't want democracy.

It's not something you hand people at bayonette point, sovereignty needs to proceed democracy.

[hel]

11. IMHO, the only way is

letting Iraqis build a democracy on their own, and that will happen only in the long run. In the near future, I don't think it's possible with the current so-called-government puppies of Bremer. Without help from UN, the US occupation will leave the country very possibly with a terrible civil war or a similar battle for power. You can't divide a country ethnically and expect to get a nation at the end of it. And without a real nation, democracy does not work.

US should get out, UN should help keeping the peace and rebuilding the country. The rest is up to the Iraqis themselves.

[eleny]

12. A republic?

Yugoslavia had the republic that you suggest and poppy Bush forced it's disintegration back around 1991. This administration doesn't want Iraq to have any sort of government that would make Iraq independent of U.S. corporations. I think they want it quite fractured so they can develop it's natural resource - and I don't mean dates.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. that's history . . . .I'm looking to the future

I know the bushnazi administration doesn't want self-government in Iraq -- that's a given.

I'm more interested in possible scenarios for halting the bloodshed on all sides, not just Iraqi on U.S. or U.S. on Iraqi. I'm talkin' Sunni vs Shiite, Kurd vs. Turk, etc.

IIRC, Tito held the various states of Yugoslavia together under pretty autocratic rule and left little structure in place to continue the amalgamation after his death. But I could be wrong; some of my history of that period is admittedly tainted by my then-repuke education.

My suggestion that the various factions establish their own autonomies would be analogous, perhaps -- PERHAPS --, to the autonomy grasped by the separating Soviet republics.

Remember that most of the "countries" of the Mideast are artificial creations born out of the rubble of World War I and the simultaneous geo-political collapses of the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Russian empire. Many of their ethnic loyalties are much older and stronger than words like "Iraq" and "Syria."

[edward]

14. Democracy?

We would have it here first.
What is the strategy of invasion in the first place: destabilization.
If democracy means "rule of the people" then...that's the most frightening proposition for the current american regime.

[Tansy_Gold]

15. see my post 13 above

and I'll even amend my suggestion --

if not "democracy" per se, what about "peace"??

[edward]

16. same reply.

They don't want peace, they want war.
Don't play their game. Peace for them just means having a U.S. colony.

[Tansy_Gold]

17. so what's your solution then?

anything?

Stay and fight it out? To victory? And what's "victory?" At what point do we concede? Or do we just keep fighting until someone else defeats us -- or blows up the whole fucking planet -- and we have no choice but to concede?

Or do we concede now? Pack up and leave? How quickly? How do we protect our rear during the retreat? Or do we just write off the people who are already there?

What other alternatives do we have? Remain as colonizers? Call in the U.N.? Send Saddam and Osama engraved invitations to come back?

I mean, look, I don't like what the bushnazis are doing there or here. They're so repulsive they're almost making me rethink my position on capital punishment.

But I'm trying to engage some kind of dialogue here on solutions, not just grumps about "the bushnazis won't stand for that." Try assuming the bushnazis are no longer part of the scenario. I'm trying to come up with alternatives, not abject resignation to an unavoidable fate.

sheesh.

[Jacobin]

18. Unique and original thought

Un-invade and hand over to the U.N. They will also be run out.(We are all infidels to them) An ayatollah will come to power (which will happen eventually anyway).

Invest heavily in alternative fuels, because this whole fucking adventure was designed to put off that day anyway.

Deal with reality. Most muslims in the M.E. hate us for supporting Israel and for imperializing generally in the region. The proposed conquest is an obscene throw back to 19th century might makes right bullshit.

This invasion never was and never will be about "giving Iraq democracy".

[BeFree]

20. Good try Tansy

It seems as most are just willing to set on the sidelines and shout.... sheesh

Irrespective of what the Bushnazis want to do, the overiding concern of most Americans is that Saddma Osama (sic) is gone and democracy be instilled in Iraq.

Left to it's own devices, Bushco will make sure that no good government is ever instilled in Iraq so that a US presence remains forever. However, if we raise a ruckus and get the ball moving on democracy for Iraq then the day that we can get the hell out of there will be closer.

After all, if it ain't democracy the people of Iraq want, at least we will be able to say.."We tried before we got the hell out." AWOL has said he wants democracy in Iraq, let's make him eat those words so that we can get the hell out...the sooner the better.

BeFree

[eleny]

19. "that's history"

that's the way we operate, tansy_gold. so i think we aren't so interested in iraq becoming a republic or a democracy in the sense that you may be thinking. i believe that with all the oil in iraq, this administration wants its corporate associates to control the oil until it's depleted. why else did we go in unilaterally? we're not going to share that cookie unless it threatens bush's chances for reelection.

look at the oil history of Azerbaijan. multinational corps went in, promised wealth to the people in exchange for developing the resource. now that the inland oil reserves have been depleted, most of the people have nothing to show for it. corporations are only interested in people except as a source of cheap labor. isn't our congress going to help bush abolish overtime for 8 million american workers?

moving along - iraqi culture is more about identity with family and tribe - not about being a citizen. as you point out, ethnic loyalties are key. democracy or a republic form of government is more than foreign to these people. so, i'm not optimisitic about them embracing something so outside their box. and remember that the soviet republics already knew western style governance prior to absorption into the ussr.

my opinion about our involvement in iraq is that it isn't about saving the people from saddham and guiding them toward democracy. it's about getting saddham and the baathists out of the way of the oil reserves. it's been the goal of the pnac. they could care less about "the people".

i'm very cynical about our government where iraq is concerned. and even more so about it's relationship to us americans.