Operation Iraqi Occupation: Bush administration scraps plan for Iraqi self-government

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheChosenOne

your assertions on islamic radicalism based on your casting of 2/3s of the population as religious radicals. The Japanese were cast as radicals immediately following WWII, leading to suggestions that reform efforts would lead to failure. That obviously was not the case.

The Japanese constitution, under U.S. influence, was adopted barely one year after the end of WWII, on November 3, 1946, and took full force in May 1947. It has been by all accounts a stunning success.

However the primary obstacle overcome by the Japanese constitution was not "religious radicals" but rather the rule of the Emperor. The constitution vested the powers of the government in the people -- and in a single stroke, accomplished its goal.

The U.S. could impose a similar constitution on Iraq. However, it will not, for the immediate future, because the U.S. is not interested in fundamental Iraqi democratic self-rule. This would be handing the power of government to a Shia Muslim majority that hates the U.S. almost as much as it hated Saddam Hussein.

It would appear that the unspoken U.S. strategy for Iraq is to create the first "live-birth corporate democracy", whereby Iraq's fundamental wealth and assets are transferred to friendly multinational corporations and banking interests prior to any constitution being instituted. This will leapfrog Iraq from 1776 to 2003 in U.S. history and make it "safe" to institute a democratic constitution -- in which the wealth of the nation is owned or controlled by non-citizens (primarily multinational corporations), the government is controlled by corporate and foreign interests, and the people have only the illusion of self-rule. This may serve U.S. interests and may be an improvement over Saddam Hussein, but has little to do with "Iraqi Freedom".

[luckydevil]

Good, we should stay as long as possible. What is the point of going to war and then to only have another anti-American/west gov.

"A free economy and a free people go hand in hand," said Bremer, who arrived two weeks ago to run the occupation authority. "History tells us that substantial and broadly held resources, protected by private property, private rights, are the best protection of political freedom."

The only way the Middle East is ever going to modernize is to embrace capitalism. Yes in the short term the negatives might outweight the positives( this as a result of the dependency created by Saddam), but in the long run the positives will far outweigh the negatives.

This is a fairly radical idea. It's also ludicrous, in my view. There are innumerable examples of socialist democracies, many ongoing today in Europe, that defy the principles espoused by Bremer.

What countries specifically are you talking about? While many European countries have somewhat embraced socialism (in terms of healthcare and other social programs), most countries in Europe are still mostly free (in the market sense). In fact the cry of pure capitalism is only getting stronger in Europe . The private sector is what allows these countries to function.

[gbear]

Tarhog,

I think you're missing 2 vital points.

First, there is always the belief that it won't happen to me or my loved ones. I know it's not true, but when a person lives under threat of death and torture all the time, they almost have to have that belief.

Second, people who are miserable want escapism. Un der Hussein, they had it. They had power, TV, ect. In the book From Beirut to Jerusalem, there is a part about the first planes into Lebannon after the bombs stopped. By request, want to take a guess what was on them? not water, not construction supplies to rebuild. TVs. People wanted to escape atleast in their minds eye what they had been seeing and living with for a time.

In that sense, it wouldn't shock me if many of the people in Iraq did not feel they are currently better off. They may be better off, but they may not think so.

[Tarhog]

I don't dispute your points Gbear, they are good ones. I'd just argue that what the Iraqi's 'think' is irrelevant at present. The final 'outcome' is yet to be determined, and I have no doubt we will eventually bring about a better life for the Iraqi people.

[Yomar]

I agree, at the moment Iraqi opinion is irrelevant, we can't cut out and leave them with no government or order. And its pretty much impossible to believe the Iraqis will be worse off than under Hussein. But that doesn't mean anything we do is the right thing. How this is handled is going to follow the US around for the several generations, I believe it is important that we don't let large corporations carve up Iraq before a democracy and Iraqi leadership is set up to represent the Iraqis in negotiations.

[Art]

It's amusing to me to see 60 percent of the Iraqi population characterized as members of the radical sect of Islam. But, aside from the fundamental idiocy of such statements, I think TCO effectively ended a major thrust by ASF here simply by offering stunning contrary evidence.

Unlike Larry's thought that it took seven paragraphs to move beyond mocking ASF for what he said, it was just one paragraph of questioning ASF's sanity -- with that paragraph being immediately after "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!" -- before deconstructing in the most efficient and effective way what was said.

Iraq is far better off today than they were under Hussein. They'll continue to be better as the days pass. As we increase their oil production and continue to bring in coalition businesses to reconstruct the country which benefits the nation while our businesses benefit as well.

But, we're fortunate to be members of a society that are quick to judge as a failure everything we do only to be proven wrong, time and again, yet not see them retract, only find new horrible ways in which we're wrong .