Democracy By Invasion???

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
I believe there are several ways of "representative". One is "selective" the other is "elective". Would US hold fair elections for Iraqis after Saddam's regime (4-6 months) or would "wait for suitable time i.e. some years"?
[/QUOTE]

I think there are more than two ways of forming a representative government. I'm not quite sure what you would call a loya jirga. I further think your question presumes that the US will decide how things go after Saddam's regime falls. My own best guess is that some kind of a representative interim Iraqi government could be established within 4 to 6 months and that the interim government will decide the time frame and mechanisms to utilize in creating the final version of governance.

22

In theory a lot things can happen.

But in practice and history shows us this practice, we've all got a very good idea what will happen!

23

Political War Already Lost: Expert

Political War Already Lost: Expert
Agence France Presse, AN

SYDNEY, 1 April 2003 — The United States and its allies have probably already lost the political war over Iraq, one of Australia’s most respected defense experts said yesterday. Professor Des Ball, of Canberra’s Australian National University (ANU), said instead of putting an end to terrorism, US/UK forces would have effectively strengthened Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks by the end of the war.

Ball, a specialist in intelligence and defense studies at the ANU’s Strategic and Defense Studies Center, predicted that US/UK forces would be successful in capturing or killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and toppling his regime.

But he said the war would diminish the security of the US, Australia and other allies. “The coalition has very likely already lost this war,” said Ball. “Saddam and his regime will go but the coalition’s other war aims, I believe, are in tatters.”

He said it did not seem likely that US/UK forces would find any substantial quantities of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “At least of the source that will persuade world public opinion that their removal was worth the price,” he said.

“Even if chemical weapons are used in the defense of Baghdad that will be seen … as a more legitimate means of last-ditch self-defense rather than evidence of any offensive capabilities of being any worse than coalition air and missile bombardments.”

Ball also warned that US/UK forces would fail to produce evidence of links between terrorist network Al-Qaeda and Iraq that would satisfy world opinion.

**“Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups will be strengthened by the war, in Iraq itself as well as around the rest of the world,” he said.

“Most importantly, the aim of liberating the Iraqi people from the despotic Saddam regime has now probably been foreclosed.**

“The coalition faces defeat in the sense that it’s likely to emerge from this war with its global interests more threatened, its strategic standing in the world more challenged and its security, the security of the United States and its allies, ultimately diminished.

**“It would take a brave person to argue that the security of the world is going to end up being enhanced by this war.”

Ball said the coalition’s strategy of shock and awe and its focus on the Iraqi leadership had failed.**

…

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I never heard of a loya jirga before the fall of the Taliban. One would hardly call that form of selecting leadership democratic. But, you would call it representative. If it works for the Afghans, who am I or anyone else to criticize that method of government?
[/QUOTE]

Are you crazy?
The similarities between Afghanistan and Iraq end at Mullah Omar's and Saddams facial hair and even that is not remotely similar. Iraq is a totally different ball game. Loya jirga and tribal lifestyle do not permeate the majority of the Iraqi lifestyle. The Iraqi people are such that they cannot and won't accept less than a free and impartial government of their own choosing. It will be interesting to see if at all US can tolerate such a government.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
When all is said and done in the War (which is most definitely NOT about imposing democracy on Iraq), it will be in the best interests of the US and everyone else to let the Iraqis ultimately decide their form of government. What is key in my mind is that the government be "representative."

[/QUOTE]

Upon the same principle I hope you will lobby your peers and other relevent people to make sure that the over 65% of the "representative" government includes and is of the Shias unlike the top brass who state "the lower infrastructure of the Ba'ath party will remain intact" with US administration. Reference: Economist.

25

Rhia:
No I'm not crazy. I may be a little "touched" now and again but I feel better today.

The purpose of mentioning loya jirga was to demonstrate that there are a multitude of different ways of coming up with representative governments. I didn't suggest that loya jirga was right for Iraq. However, based upon culture and history of Iraq, there may be some generally accepted form of selection of a representative government that would be acceptable to the Iraqi people that I am not familiar with. Whatever is acceptable and works for the Iraqi people ought to be good enough for the US.

As to the lower infrastructure of the Baath party remaining in place, I think your understanding and my understanding of what that means are quite different. I think that the Baath party as a political entity or force is going to be totally smashed and dismantled. That said, there is a governmental infrastructure in place that can deliver electricity, water, food, garbage collection, fuel, etc. to the Iraqi people. I'm pretty sure that most of the people running and/or serving the Baghdad electric company or the Baghdad water works are Baath party members but are more akin to our own civil service workers than party spokespersons or part of Saddam's inner circle. The fact that an infrastructure exists in Iraq to deliver the necessities of life and/or valuable services to the people makes the potential rebuilding of Iraq a far less daunting task than rebuilding a country like Afghanistan. My understanding is that this type of infrastructure is what we would like to preserve. We want to remove several layers which include policy making and leadership positions. The replacements for the removed layers should indeed be representative of the Shias, Kurds, Sunnis and anyone else who has a stake in Iraq.

26

I am very glad to hear you are feeling better. :)

First off it seems to me there are quite a few things you are not familiar with. Hopefully you will catch up sooner than later.

If the priority is to keep the infrstucture intact so that "rebuilding" will be easier then I don't understand the need to "spike" electrical facilities with fibre optics nor do I understand the destruction of water facilities nor the deliberate targetting of telecommunication and transport facilites.

Now let me help you understand why keeping the infrastructure of the ba'athist regime is not necessarily about civil service. Keeping the Ba'athist structure in the goverment will in its basic form ensure the dilution of any political strength the majority may gain. This is precisely for "those who have a stake in Iraq" with the exception of Shias and Kurds. You should ask the Shias and Kurds why they are fuming at the noble US plans of using the Ba'athist regime to keep the "infrastructure" of the country intact.

27

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
I am very glad to hear you are feeling better. :)
[/QUOTE]

Thanks. It was touch and go for awhile.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
First off it seems to me there are quite a few things you are not familiar with. Hopefully you will catch up sooner than later.
[/QUOTE]

The longer I live, the more I realize how many things I don't know. I've reached a state of zen acknowledging that I will never catch up on all.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
If the priority is to keep the infrstucture intact so that "rebuilding" will be easier then I don't understand the need to "spike" electrical facilities with fibre optics nor do I understand the destruction of water facilities nor the deliberate targetting of telecommunication and transport facilites.
[/QUOTE]

Targeting of telecommunications and transport facilities is pretty obvious. I am a little surprised that we haven't done more to disrupt the telecommunications side. It is probably related to our desire not to harm the infrastructure too much. Electrical facilities and water facilities have not been destroyed. Despite dire predictions, the lights are on in Baghdad and the water is running. Given what you know and/or have seen of US weaponry, I would guess that you, as an intelligent person, recognize that the US could have turned off all the water, lights, telephones, etc. in all of Iraq by now if it wanted to.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Rhia: *
Now let me help you understand why keeping the infrastructure of the ba'athist regime is not necessarily about civil service. Keeping the Ba'athist structure in the *goverment will in its basic form ensure the dilution of any political strength the majority may gain. This is precisely for "those who have a stake in Iraq" with the exception of Shias and Kurds. You should ask the Shias and Kurds why they are fuming at the noble US plans of using the Ba'athist regime to keep the "infrastructure" of the country intact.
[/QUOTE]

I think our only difference here is where we draw the line between the "government" and the "Bureaucracy." When the "news" of these plans first came out, I did see reports of the Shias and Kurds "fuming." I, personally, think that it came from a misunderstanding. But, then again, I am not in the government and don't make the plans. Hopefully, a happy compromise will be worked out in deciding how many layers to cut into.

When you think of the demise of the Soviet Union, you would not be able to say that no one who was a communist should stay in the Bureaucracy. There was only one party and about everyone belonged to it.

I don't think it will all be an easy task. In our own country, political machines have used civil service positions as spoils. The Iraqi civil service must be opened to allow the OUTS in the Saddam regime to be part of the INS in the new government. But, I don't think the best way to do this is to totally dismantle what's there and then rebuild it.

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

You're right. Glad to see you picked up on this. Now I know my time in Guppistan has not been wasted.

When all is said and done in the War (which is most definitely NOT about imposing democracy on Iraq), it will be in the best interests of the US and everyone else to let the Iraqis ultimately decide their form of government. What is key in my mind is that the government be "representative."

[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is that the previous example in Afghanistan, of US ensuring a "representative govt" resulted in the Northern Alliance ( a big minority) running Afghanistan. Which probably explains why Karzai's rule is limited to Kabul under US bodyguards.

29

Bless.

Here are some articles to help you attain enlightenment:

US draws up secret plan to impose regime on Iraq

An UNconfirmed role

“Many in the American administration…believe that once they have won the war, they will have the right to run Iraq according to their political ideals.”