What is the goal of "democracy" in Iraq?

[Baculus]

In a September, 2003 speech, President Bush stated that “The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.” The question that needs to be posed in reply to such a statement is the following: How is democracy going to be accomplished in Iraq, especially in light with the historical and political situation of the region and in context of the involved organizations? What is “democracy” and “freedom” in the context, once again, of the Middle East, and of the nation building exercise in Iraq? Also, how will such democracy develop and actually be “democratic” when anti-democratic and Iranian forces are the winner of such a democracy?

Democracy and freedom – freedom to be democratic…but how, and who is the winner?

One issue that we have to consider is that Iraq is a near theocracy, in which its laws must follow Koran-based guidelines. In addition, religious-based parties such as the Islamic Dawa party (who supported the Iranian Revolution) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq have won a great number of seats in the recent elections, have deep ties with Iran, and have a endgame goal of an Iranian-style regime in Iraq. And while Iraq has not achieved a state similar to Iran thus far, there are elements of such a state already created in certain provinces of the nation. Ultimately, as such power is consolidated, especially with popular support, such a state will likely be created and it will be difficult for the U.S. to stop this reality. And the simple fact is that an alternative, especially one that is pro-America as well as being moderate, has not be presented and does not appear to be so in the near future.

Was the democratic objective in Iraq really for groups, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to win in the political process? Or, are such victories, even if they elected organizations hostile and oppose the U.S. as well as being aligned with hostile states such as Iran, in reality a defeat, even if within the context of the “democratic process” being conducted in Iraq?

This would actually go against the last half-century of American policy where even popularity elected leaders were often opposed if they were communist or aligned with enemy states of the U.S. Even George W. Bush declined to help Shiite organizations in southern Iraq, when they attempted to rebel against Saddam in 1991, since he was fearful of an Iranian friendly state in the south of Iran or even deposing Saddam. Interestingly, some of these groups involved in that uprising are now represented in the Iraqi parliament.

And the crux of the entire situation is the involvement of Iran, which now has their hands in Iraq more than they ever would have dreamed possible when Saddam was in power. Think of the reality of Iranian friendly forces gaining more and more control in the Iraqi government as well as in the Shiite south.

So, what indeed was the objective? Was it for a secular nation? If this was the case, when how would this be accomplished, considering the U.S.’s alliance with religious based groups? (This is similar to alliances with such religious-based organizations including some members that make up Al-Qaida and the Taliban, among other groups.) Also, many of the secularists have already been purged to the degree of being ineffective – this would include many former Ba’athists, leftists, and others that were not considered in the Bush administration’s plans for the region. The U.S. has supported in past history the purge of secular organizations in the Middle East, mostly because these secular groups were communist, leftists, or generally not supportive of American aims in the Middle East. This often left a vacuum of secular organizations to oppose many of the more orthodox religious groups and their teachings to the populace without an alternative.

If a secular nation was not the goal, then what was the expected resulted of a more religious, fundamentalist-based nation? That such a nation would be borne of moderation? If this was the situation, then do we have a model upon which such a nation would be organized? In fact, how many nations do we have that represent such an ideal that isn’t, in essence, a dictatorship, especially in the Muslim world?

For example, here are the philosophical guidelines for Dawa;

• Absolute sovereignty belongs to God.

• Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam.

• The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers.

• The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality.

Now, of course, one can argue that the above aspirations does not immediately mean that an “evil” regime in Iraq will arise. But generally, and unfortunately, such aspirations are usually accompanied by elements of radical Islam as well as a desire to export such aspirations in a “world wide revolution,” which is rhetoric shared by Dawa’s associates in Tehran. Furthermore, the issue of “freedom,” mentioned by President Bush in the earlier quote, comes into question, since such notions of freedom are often presented with the understanding of Western style freedoms which are often not understood or supported by the theologians and religious-based organizations.

And, the reality is that Iraq’s may not even be a future ally of the U.S., but of Iran, a member of the “Axis of Evil.”

Of course, Iraqi nationalism as well as political and economic may prevent such a close alignment with Iran, but the foundation is already laid for such an alliance and has been developing for decades for such an Iraqi-Iranian axis to be created.

If Western and American values were ultimately to have taken root in Iraq, then this goal will be an uphill battle, a battle which many in this nation do not understand. There is simply not an organization aligned with such values and which also have a strong sway over the general population or have political and military muscle. There are some elements in the Iraqi government that hold position, but they are overshadowed by some of the previously mentioned theocratic organizations. In fact, the strongest example of a pro-American and Western faction is the Kurds, and they are practically a separate entity unto themselves and would probably secede from Iraq if an Iranian-allied state arose in the region. And groups, such as the INA and the INC, which were funded in the past by the U.S., hold some power in the Iraqi parliament but do not appear to have the popularity and political influence of some groups such as Dawa.

Ironically, if an extremists religious government did arise in Iraq, probably one of the U.S.’s best hope for opposition would be some of the insurgent groups who now fight against the United States, but are more secular in nature, do not have extremely conservative religious beliefs, or are more nationalistic in nature and would likely oppose close ties with Iran. It would not be unlikely, in a pragmatic situation, for the U.S. to oppose an alliance with past hostile factions if they would oppose forces hostile to American objectives. This has been happening with the current situation and may by the “change in tactics” that Bush has recently hinted in press reports.

In the end, even if the U.S. “wins,” which means that Iraq stabilizes this does not mean that it is actually an American victory, for the outlined objectives for Iraq will not have been met, other than the “democracy” that was purveyed to have been a desired result of the Iraqi situation.

Any thoughts, corrections, further information, etc? If not, then I hope my perspective would inspire some thought on the serious effort currently in progress in Iraq.

(P.s. Sorry for the long read, but I had time on my hands after seeing the 'Skins lose to the Colts. I had to do something to take my mind off the game's results!)

[twa]

Nice post.

Do you think you might be slightly biased against the religous aspect though?

I am not in disagreement with your thoughts ,but there is a fairly strong branch

of Islam that while supporting religious goals also sees the need for seperation between goverment and religion.

Now whether this branch can prevail is certainly in question,but the results from Mullah secular rule has shown to be defective both in Iran and in it's influence in Iraqi politics.

Whatever form democracy takes there will certainly be different from our own model...IF it takes at all,of course.

[Baculus]

Thanks, Twa. And I am actually slightly biased towards the religious aspect, and for a reason: Because of the strong influence that this dynamic has upon politics and government in the region. There are other dynamics at work here, of course, but the ties that bind seem to be often overlooked in a brief examination of the subject.

There are some Muslims that beleive in a separation of Church and Government, but they also tend to be drowned out in many countries by the more radical elements. Or worse yet, they are simply arrested or thrown in jail, since such dissenting notions aren't often tolerated in some regions.

I agree that the non-secular Mullah-governance has shown to be pretty much a failure, since it replaced, in Iran, a Shah-dictatorship with a Mullah-dictatorship. Dictatorships are often failures in the long run, but that doesn't stop new dictators from grabbing power.

[Baculus]

Any further thoughts? Or is more about the ideas purveyed by either side of the political ideas as opposed to concrete thoughts based upon reality?

This was one reason why I made this post: Too often, and this is from both pro and anti-Iraq war positions, I hear viewpoints that really lack more concrete planning.

[mjah]

The goals of "democracy" in Iraq:

1) Start with a bunch of Judeo-Christian based governing principles that developed over the course of 3,000 years in places like Greece, Rome, and western Europe -- principles which, even among those who admired their elegance and beauty, really only came to fruition in the past 250 years, requiring a completely new discovered land and several wars to establish themselves firmly.

2) Foist them, via outright warfare, upon a disjointed, flimsily composed country with completely different beliefs about religion, politics, family and society. ...A country that really doesn't give any indication of having wanting new principles in the first place.

3) ?

4) Profit!

How to go about it:

1) Declare war for unsupportable reasons.

2) Blow up all kinds of stuff. Kill hundreds of thousands of people.

3) Expect to be welcomed as liberators. Anticipate that the new system will take hold within three years.

4) Light fuse and get away. Far, far away.

Right now we're into early step 4. We have lit the fuse -- oh, we lit the hell out of that fuse! -- but we haven't yet found the sense to get far away.

[Sarge]

This is what happens when you go into things half assed and in this case, not knowing about the arab mentality

We should have flattened the place and not allowed the army to blend into the civilian populous. For this I blame Rumsfeld and Turkey

We should have gone in and said, "Here's a Constitution. Read it. Like it. NOtice it doesn't have islam as a factor"

B-52 anyone that didn't like it

B-52 anyone that let foreign nationals in to start ****, including Iran, Syria and the Sauds.

After the iraqi's got used to doing things our way, then we could ease up and turn over control

[codeorama]

After the iraqi's got used to doing things our way, then we could ease up and turn over control

Wow, that's very democratic and free of us... :laugh: :laugh:

[Sarge]

Wow, that's very democratic and free of us... :laugh: :laugh:

See, that's what people don't understand. The general arabs populous has no idea how to act when there isn't someone throwing them in a wood chipper. A firm hand is and was needed until they go used to things.

[mjah]

I blame Rumsfeld and Turkey

So you want to blame the same guy twice?

[Burgold]

Sarge is right. The reason we don't understand what the "goal" of democracy in Iraq is is because we didn't really have one. We had several very sketchily designed objectives. A) Get the bad guys Secure the WMD's C) Create a utopian domino effect that would spread like wildfire.

The principle goal in Iraq was to make Americans safer... didn't really much about the Iraqis. Freeing them was a tertiary goal. The first goal was to make Americans safe. That meant securing the WMD's. Capturing the Al Qaeda representatives in Sadam's government. And neutralizing all the plans of Al Qaeda centralized in Iraq.

Later, when it appeared that the WMD's weren't going to be found and Sadam had no alliance with Al Qaeda the goals got rewritten. It was to free a people from a tyranical monster and free its people. The grateful people were to shout horay and then in gratitude fall in line immediately in a perfect replica of American values and bureaucrasy. (At least they got the gridlock part down :sigh:)

Since then, the goals have been rewritten numerous times.

The current goal for Iraq is "Stay the Course." There's not much beyond that that anyone can point to. Perhaps our overarching is goal is to get them to be able to defend themselves. Of course, that'll leave Iraq in possibly a worse state for us than before we started this.

I really don't think they have or had a goal. I think they did have some short term objectives.

[DjTj]

See, that's what people don't understand. The general arabs populous has no idea how to act when there isn't someone throwing them in a wood chipper. A firm hand is and was needed until they go used to things.

Gonna have to agree with Sarge here, although I would replace "The general arabs populous" :confused: with "Any pre-democratic society." Remember, even Americans expected George Washington to become king when our country was first founded.

[TradeTheBeal!]

1. Destroy the current culture and infrastructure, by any means.

2. Set up a puppet "government" and use the area for military staging and maneuvers

3. I think there might be some oil in that area.

The other "goals" are just window dressing.

[Beaudry]

What is the goal of "democracy" in Iraq?

I thought we were doing all this for cheap oil? What a rip!