Iraqi democracy?

“So after we topple saddam, how long before the tidal wave of democracy (that so many believe is coming) floods the middle east?

The Carnegie Endowment has its opinions, let's hear yours.

How long will US forces be the Iraqi police force? What will be the final outcome? What do we gain?”

“the title of this thread may as well be classified an oxymoron. They're mutually exclusive terms...

What will come out of this? Besides oil contracts?”

“Yeah, right!”

“Hmm... we'll be there a long time.

Halliburton will get $900million in U.S. tax dollars to "rebuild the infrastructure" which means to tap their oil wells and make a profit.”

“Where's the punch line?”

“I don't think this one has a punch line, Tom. Just a bottom line and I think we said it already...”

“I won’t get a chance to read that article till later but I was lucky enough to catch the interview with the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government on NPR yesterday. He said that the great strides toward democracy that they have made have been seriously under-reported. After listening to him, I am more open to arguments that this whole ‘regime change’ is a good idea. I just hope we really have the commitment and attention span to see it through. It seems we already forgot about our promises to Afghanistan.”

“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12825-2003Mar11.html

This is another one of my favorite articles on the subject”

“Phaedrus, I think the authors of that article are being just a touch too Chicken Little about democracy in Iraq. Although they correctly say Iraq doesn't have experience with democracy, they incorrectly draw false analogies with Haiti and Afghanistan. What they leave out is that ordinary Iraqis, unlike the peasantry in Haiti and Afgh., are literate, educated, and fairly secular. Iraqis just want to make money - which is very conducive to liberal democratic reform. Instead of focusing on Iraq in particular, though, the authors focus on the "Middle East" as a whole, which really is a meaningless overgeneralization that undermines their argument. Although I don't agree with the "tsunami" theory of Middle East democratic liberalization, I think Iraqis have, among Arabs, one of the best chances to enact viable democratic rule. Obviously, the International community will have to be in Iraq for some time. And even then it will be a crap-shoot. But one thing is certain: the U.S. cannot force democracy; we can only provide a favorable start. The onus is on the Iraqis to make it work for themselves. So if it fails, the failure won't be solely on the shoulders of the U.S. And regardless of how the international community feels about the war now, after American occupation, they, too, will bear part of the burden for reconstruction and democratization.”

“I believe the average age in Iraq right now is 14... I hear that on the radio, so I haven't double checked it, but if true, that is a relevent point in determining a populace's readiness for self-rule.

Also, after years of oppression, one would think that some of the literacy rate would have been superceded by this point, especially with the trade restrictions they have been under for the past eleven years.

And then beyond that, there is the issue of the Kurds. If they don't get their own state, it's going to be an obstacle to peaceful democratic government in a unified Iraq.

All in all, while I believe that Iraq CAN become a democracy, I don't believe it's ripe for the id3ea yet, nor in the very near future. I also think the international community can and will refuse to foot part of the Iraqi rebuilding as some countries are threatening to do right now.”

“I wouldn't worry about the international community having to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.. Bush is already taking bids from the guys who put him in office.

http://msnbc.com/news/883088.asp?0cv=CB10”

“I also think the international community can and will refuse to foot part of the Iraqi rebuilding as some countries are threatening to do right now.

I disagree. I think they'll be there eager to help out in order to gain any spoils of war they think they can get.

Moreover, most of the European opposition to the war really seems to be about Europe's internal politics rather than Iraq or anti-Americanism. I don't think anti Americanism is so strong as to keep them out of the international interventions after the war.

But you're right about the literacy point. I should clarify: I was speaking of urban Baghdadites.”

“donman beat me to it!”

“Part of the deal with the Kurds is that they will not seek their own state but will part of a republic. They realize that Turkey will never allow it and are practical enough not to seek something unattainable. Of course, they are feeling particularly betrayed by Washington now. For another perspective, there are a number of essays and interviews here: www.puk.org”

“Look at Afganistan...the U.S. kicked out the Taliban...and put in a puppet democratic govt...it haven't been running smoothly.”

“Hmmmm... Perhaps the future of terrorism lies in the heart of Kurdish Iraq.”

“More world doctrine from a bunch of bozos who can't manage their own lives.”

“more whining from bacpac”

“You're talking about Richard Perle and company? I agree.”

“Don't mind me. I am a 14 year old Iraqi running for President.”

“If you have RealPlayer C-Span's interview with Dr. Salih is worth a listen. Also Christopher Hitchens has some pretty harsh words in Slate for Turkey and the proposed sellout of the Kurds by the US.”

“Do people think that there is any type of goverment in those places?????

People walk around with Guns down the street in the wide open and all kinds of other crazy stuff.

How can you sort out the people over there that can't be trusted from the ones that can?

I see no end in what is going on over there only the fact that its going to be turned into a big sand box/parking lot very soon.

8|”

“CMB, are you talking about L.A central or Harlem?”

“You've traveled there much Mike?”

“Its just what I thihk thats all.

8|”

“Apparently, the Canegie foundation isn't the only group of analysts that have a hard time swallowing this:

From the LA Times:

SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ
Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.


Times Headlines


Iraq War May Incite Terrorists


Allies Meeting to Chart Final Steps on Iraq


Latest Moves by President Pave the Way for a War


China Hands Off Powers to Next Generation


Mexico Arrests Alleged Drug Lord


more >




UNITED STATES

WAR

GOVERNMENT

DEMOCRACY

IRAQ















By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.







The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root -- an event the report casts as unlikely -- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to The Times.

"Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

The thrust of the document, the source said, "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible."

Even the document's title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes."

The report was produced by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm.

State Department officials declined to comment on the report. Intelligence officials said the report does not necessarily reflect the views of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or other senior State Department officials.

Daunting Challenges

The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting.

"Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source.

The report is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

It's not clear whether the president has seen the report, but such documents are typically distributed to top national security officials.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," Bush said.

Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months.

But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel.

Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be "the first Arab democracy" and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world."

Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq "has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential."

White House officials hold out the promise of a friendly and functional government in Baghdad to contrast with administration portrayals of President Saddam Hussein's regime as brutal and bent on building his stock of biological and chemical weapons.

The domino theory also is used by the administration as a counterargument to critics in Congress and elsewhere who have expressed concern that invading Iraq will inflame the Muslim world and fuel terrorist activity against the United States.

But the theory is disputed by many Middle East experts and is viewed with skepticism by analysts at the CIA and the State Department, intelligence officials said.

Divisions in Iraq

Critics say even establishing a democratic government in Iraq will be extremely difficult. Iraq is made up of ethnic groups deeply hostile to one another. Ever since its inception in 1932, the country has known little but bloody coups and brutal dictators.

Even so, it is seen by some as holding more democratic potential -- because of its wealth and educated population -- than many of its neighbors.

By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Middle East can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population.

Given such trends, "we'll be lucky to have strong central governments [in the Middle East], let alone democracy," said one intelligence official with extensive experience in the region.

The official stressed that no one in intelligence or diplomatic circles opposes the idea of trying to install a democratic government in Iraq.

"It couldn't hurt," the official said. "But to sell [the war] on the basis that this is going to cause 1,000 flowers to bloom is naive."

Some officials said the classified document reflects views that are widely held in the State Department and CIA but that those holding such views have been muzzled in an administration eager to downplay the costs and risks of war.

One intelligence official said the CIA has not been asked to produce its own analysis on the domino question.

CIA Assessment

At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, CIA Director George J. Tenet offered a modest assessment of the prospects that overthrowing Hussein could prompt a wave of reform.

"I don't want to be expansive in, you know, a big domino theory about what happens in the rest of the Arab world," Tenet said. "But an Iraq whose territorial integrity has been maintained, that's up and running and functioning ... may actually have some salutary impact across the region."

The State Department report cites "high levels of corruption, serious infrastructure degradation, overpopulation" and other forces causing widespread disenfranchisement in the region.

The report concludes that "political changes conducive to broader and enduring stability throughout the region will be difficult to achieve for a very long time."

Middle East experts said there are other factors working against democratic reform, including a culture that values community and to some extent conformity over individual rights.

"I don't accept the view that the fall of Saddam Hussein is going to prompt quick or even discernible movement toward democratization of the Arab states," said Philip C. Wilcox, director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and a former top State Department official. "Those countries are held back not by the presence of vicious authoritarian regimes in Baghdad but by a lot of other reasons."

Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

In pushing for democracy in the Middle East, he is departing somewhat from a long track record of U.S. presidents -- focused on preserving stability, economic ties, and access to Middle East oil -- backing autocratic regimes.

Still, the Bush White House has been selective in applying pressure for reform, favoring longtime U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

*

Times staff writer Sonni Efron contributed to this report.”

“Sorry about the rotten cut and paste job.

:(”

“Iraq is 80 % Shia Muslim, but is currently ruled by a minority of largely secular Suni Muslims (Saddam is Suni Muslim). Shiites are RARELY "secular" - one needs only to look at Iran and Afghanistan for confirmation of this fact.

A truly democratic election in Iraq would most likely mean the installation of yet another Islamic state in the Middle East, like Iran and the Taliban. That's why George the First put down the rebellion in Iraq following the end of Gulf War I - he and his cronies feared a government tied with Iran, and even MORE hostile to the US than the existing government in Iraq.

A good nonpartisan account of the fiasco committed by the US in Iraq can be found in the Cockburn-brothers' book, "Out of the Ashes: the Resurrection of Saddam Hussein" (the book actually favors the idea of ousting Hussein, by the way).

George the Second couldn't possibly really want a truly democratic government in Iraq, since he has already branded the world's only other Shiite government as part of the "Axis of Evil," and a FAIR election in Iraq MUST result in a Shiite government in Iraq. No, George II will install a puppet government that will only serve to reinforce hatred of the US in the Middle East.”

“When and how will the 'Peoples Republic of California'finally become a democrazy?”

“That's an easy one Salebored. California will become a democracy when the Nean-Libs stopping having illegal aliens and dead people voting.”

“It will at the same time Florida does, so shut yer pie holes.”