David M. Payne

I think Bush has gotten rid of a very bad man/regime in Saddam and the Baath party, but what will we get in his/it's place? Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the center, Shiite's in the south, and they are all at each other's throats. It all reminds me of Yugoslavia after Tito. It looks like a quagmire in the making to me.

David

Iamthebeerking

First, it depends on how the situation is handled.

We have to remember that Iraq is a defeated nation without a government. It's a country that has been conquered and at this point has no say in how their country is run. Nor do they have any right to say how things should be done by the occupying forces of the U.S. military. They have never had a representative government and they have to learn that mob rule doesn't equate to democracy.
While that may not sound PC it's a simple reality.

The majority of Iraqi's do not want to exchange totalitarian secular rule for totalitarian religious rule. The former has been in existence for over 40 years and the latter can not be allowed to happen. To say that "if that's what they want then that's what they should get" is callous and short sighted.
There is a tremendous opportunity right now and for America to back down in the face of religious mobs in a beaten country would be a sad and terrible thing to see.

Iraq needs to be controlled and educated so that when elections do come they can vote as they wish without fear of repercussions from religous or secular parties.
Those that would take satisfaction in a religous anti-American Iraq are sick individuals indeed.

David M. Payne

Good points BKing. All political/economic systems have flaws, some fatal, some not. The only real flaw in democratic systems is the possibility of some secular or religious authoritarian third party hijacking it, and using it to "legitimize" its oppressive rule over everyone. Like Hitler did in Germany, Saddam did in Iraq, the Islamic Fundies do in Iran, or Castro does in Cuba.

David

paul30

The first requirement of democracy is self-rule.

I don't think the US will allow self-rule in Iraq for a long time, if ever.

Sometimes self-rule produces the opposite of democracy. Several Arab countries have elected Islamist theocracies in free elections.

But if that's what the Iraqis want, we should let them have it.

I have a feeling Bush will say: "You now have complete freedom to choose your leaders. Here's the select list of 5 of my best friends who are corporate execs for you to choose from."

Iraq is a fictional country that was created by the British after WWI.

It might be good to cut it into several different countries, each representing the dominant ethnic group, and let each have its own independent self-rule.

That might (MIGHT) prevent tribal/ethnic/religious warfare a la Yugoslavia.

eldar1011

Even if Iraq were to become a Western-style liberal democracy, it wouldn't necessarily be a beacon of democracy for Arab nations.

This democracy was not forged out of the will of the Iraqi people. It was not a grass-roots movements with massive popular support. It was brought about by American military intervention.

I think that it would be foolhardy to believe that the Arab world would simply ignore that very salient fact for the sake of democracy. The lesson they are presented with isn't one in which democracy can thrive in the Middle East by the will of the people. Instead, it is the lesson that democracy is brought about by an American invasion.

Whether or not that will be seen as a beacon or a threat is the real question.

David M. Payne

Boy, Bush and democracy are taking a drubbing in the poll.

Yep, good points P30. It might work but would someone like the US still have to stay militarily engaged to keep the new nations of Kurdistan, Sunni Land, and the Western Shiite enclave of Iran from each others throats? This war is most likely going to exasperate who ever ends up trying to keep the peace in the area. I think if it ends up as well as the Balkans has, we will be lucky.

It's pretty tough to impose a democracy from the outside and have it be successful, no doubt about that. I think the religious polarization in the area will keep any real democracy from forming in the area. Iran is a good example of how an authoritarian religious movement can pervert the ideals of democracy, and use it to implement religious mob rule.
I did a SF story in the Agora, Utopia-612, that takes another look at the problem of this religious conflict and where it could lead to. That's what I like about the Internet, it has so much flexibility and utility in presenting a forum for discussions like this one.

David