“Nation building” requires a commitment to a long-term, very risky, and potentially very expensive program. It has to be done the way we did it with Germany and Japan: impose a democracy, and then stick around long enough to allow it to take root. After WWII, the US wrote the Japanese a Constitution, taught the Japanese how to operate a democratic government and educated the next generation in democratic ideals. This required occupying the nation for years. And it worked - Japan is now a successful democracy. But the circumstances in Japan were a best-case scenario. Japan had a cohesive culture (i.e. no tendency to civil war). They had, in fact, had a parliament for many years before and during the war. It wasn't a military dictatorship. Attempts to impose representative democracy on an ex-dictatorship are going to be fraught with problems, and I don’t believe the results of the exercise of “imposed democracy” are not going to fit the idealized, amorphous projections that I imagine are being bandied about the Pentagon. The US intends to impose a democracy after General Franks leaves his post as dictator of Iraq a few years after conquest. Can this be done? :m: Peace.
The Bush Doctrine also avoids clear implications of the fact that US hegemony in the Mideast is unpopular in the region, and in Iraq: If a true democracy were somehow "imposed" Free Iraq would most likely express this sentiment by spurning the US government, and the corporations for whom the US has wreaked so much pain and destruction in a chain of mercenary actions. If a "friendly" dictatorship is isolated as a puppet colony, internal and external forces could isolate and precipitate regime failure if US troops are not available long-term in magnitude and tactics approaching those of the Israel Defense Forces (such a spectre could eventually spark a regional Arab-American war). If a non-democracy that is unfriendly to the US should result from a failed regime, the results would be the same negative consequences for the US govt and corporate clients. The Bush doctrine also avoids the implications of unintended collapsing of regimes adjoining Iraq: Such instability would provide for increases in popular support, recruiting, and strategic bases of operation, for paramilitary and "terrorist" groups resisting US troops in the Mideast (as is al-Qaeda's primary mission). The Bush Doctrine avoids the implications that conditions do not remotely resemble the conditions when the US occupied Japan and parts of Germany; nor do they resemble those the Soviet Union was presented with in Eastern Europe in forging the Warsaw "Pact". The Bush Imperium apparently has not considered the increasingly frequent failures of previous empires, as they have developed a starkly unoriginal global strategy. Even worse, they apparently have not an inkling of the possibility that the rest of the world may discover itself permanently leaving the age of empires, and America, behind.
*sigh* Well... I tried to make it a non-partisan question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's an interesting question. For the record, Japan was as close to a military dictatorship as you could find, despite its parliamentary framework. The military, particularly the army, had assumed control of the cabinet by 1931, assassinating any civlian ministers who were in opposition. However, your point is taken. They were a very homogenous people; one ethnic group, basically one religion. I'm not sure how much of a precedent that model is for Iraq. Will the US be able to unite Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Or will it be another Yugoslavia, with Roman Catholic Croats, Eastern Orthodox slavic Serbs, and Bosnian Muslims hating each other? How long will the US be able to maintain a substantial presence in the heart of the region without incurring the wrath of the Muslim world? How will the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and the fundamentalist Iranians react to a democracy among them? Will they view it as a threat and look to topple it? I have serious doubts whether this can be accomplished. I think there will be a lot of blood, sweat and tears and when all is said and done, a leader of a powerful faction will attempt to assert himself and civil war will break out. But, JMO.
Sorry, Goofy, I'm just one hell of a P.O.'d Republican, had my Party and country crashed by that retarded primadonna.
The issue here comes back to what democracy really means. If a vast majority oif the country is religiously fundamentalist, is it not the will of the people to live in an (to our way of thinking) oppressive theocracy? If a man is a dictator, but an immensely popular one beloved by his people, is it not the will of the people to live in a totalitarian dictatorship? The problem is the continued insistance of Americans that "democracy" means the American form of republican representative democracy. How many third-world countries have legally and popularly elected a socialist or communist head of state only to have American send in troops to put someone in place more amenable to American corporate interests? To answer the qiestion more succinctly, no, it is not possible to impose democracy. Since democracy is the will of the people, it should be their say that counts. If we are imposing something on them, it cannot be their will, otherwise it would not be an imposition.
Northwind, surely you aren't suggesting that the Iraqis will not soon overwhelmingly vote Republican? Not even the Rpublican Guard? I predict the Honorable Candidate Tommy Franks will win 99.9% of the vote in shiny new, (blood) red, white (corporate immigration) and blue (bereaved) democratic (small 'd') Babylon, and he will serve out his (life of the country)term of 2-4 years.
Imposing democracy To my simple way of thinking, imposing democracy on Iraq will be like trying to drive a nail with a toothpick, while pouring hot butter up a wildcats a*s.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can Democracy be "imposed", you mean the way they did in Afghanistan? Attack the country, *allegedly commit war crimes - See documentary "Massacre in Afghanistan—Did the Americans Look On?" by Jamie Doran" - also www.wsws.org, then impose a puppet regiem hated by everyone else whilst your "proxy forces" are let loose to rape and pillage and try to assasinate your new leader to take power for themselves turning a blind eye, in fact now leaving Afghanistan declaring to the world you "Fixed it" and its now a more free and happy democracy. Their puppet leader would already of been dead with off the bat if it wasnt for the fact that his would of been assasin was such a shit shot...how can you stick a gun in a window of a stationary car at someone and fire of all your bullets and miss.....either hes the worlds worst assasin or the conspiracy theorists should have a go at it. Did they really think after allowing one of their creations to cause them so much grief they could then decide: "Using 1 proxy didnt work, this time we will use 6!" - the northern alliance, i know its not 6 but you know what i mean, all the Rival WarLords. etc. Then use them to make USA's mess bigger in a different way than it already is and leave them to it with their puppet in power and think they would all sit back and go oh well ok then that works for us...... In normal Circumstances "This" kind of "Democracy" isn't something you can enforce, where an alien country comes in and installs "Their" proxy government in charge. In this situation its even worse for reasons most of you well know.
I'm not sure the stated objective in Afghanistan was to impose democracy. It was to oust the Taliban who were abetting Al Qaeda, while hopefully getting bin Laden and disrupting the terrorist organization. Unfortunately, I don't think enough thought was put into 'what happens next' as far as the country was concerned.
Your right it wasnt. I seem to of fallen into the trap of twisting events to justify a rant, it was cheap, immature and very dubbya of me, i apologise *stands in the corner and looks suitable ashamed* As for what happens next i dont know but it doens't look good for Afghanistan at the moment and we will be hearing more from it soon is America doesn't get its way. (i think) I do however want to get my hands on a book being release soon called Operation dagger *unfortunatly there seems to be a comuter game by the same name so its hard to search for it on the net*. Its about how the Americans actually let OBL get away at least 3 times, written from sources in the British and i think a few American special forces, due out in the shops about May i think, i saw it in the Sunday er...express i think, man i need to start writting sources down when i see them *sighs*
I think it can be done for any group of people, regardless of internal differences like religion. We would be imposing the opportunity to express their will, not their will itself.
Zanket, the moment the will of the population of Iraq is expressed, civil war will break out, along with a Kurdish war with Turkey for extra turmoil on top. The Shiites who will ultimately control the oilfields will be hostile to the United States. These are givens.
Civil war wouldn’t be an option for an occupied country, just as civil war isn’t an option within any US state. Part of imposing democracy is building a national military who swears allegiance to the constitution. The Shiites would no longer be in control of the oil fields.
Cannon:"Its about how the Americans actually let OBL get away at least 3 times" I have not read the book. However, It would be reasonable to expect that it describes a time when OBL did not "get away" from the US. He was supported by them, along with thousands of other anti-Soviet mujaheddin. After their victory, until they turned on the US, there was a period when the CIA was flirting them as the inheritors of power as they went home victorious warriors. The US was spurned. Then things started to go nasty fast, in Iraq, in the Israeli-occupied Territories, and in the economies of OPEC countries. The uneasy alliance between the US and the Mujaheddin became a hot war. Not until then was the US interested in getting OBL.
How long can we occupy iraq to prevent civil war The kurdish problem is as old as I am, probably older. The Kurds go waaayy back and hold grudges for a long time. The situation for the Kurds hasn't changed much since 1924. They attack then they are attacked, yet they still persist. Are we to presume that they will readily accept a concept of government that is totally alien to them? I really hope so, but we have no real way of knowing what an ancient culture will do when we tell them to go vote for their favorite war lord.
I'm not sure why we'll bother trying to hold the country together. Even though I'm not anti-bush (much), I must say that he does indeed take after his father in with his worshiping the alter of stability. Iraq should have torn itself apart years ago, and it is stupid to try and hold it together. Let it split itself 3 ways, and then sit back and offer assistance as asked for. Actually, both are true! We supported obl in the past, yes that was very stupid. And we let him slip through are hands after he had become a threat, which was really stupid. Stuff like this makes me wish that there was a place I could move to that was better then america... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bigger Problem I see a bigger problem. I don't disagree with the many assessments that have been made but what I don't see is any useful alternative proposals and the fact is we must act. We simply cannot allow Iraq or any piss ant dictator or nation to trample all over us. N. Korea is a perfect example. Does anyone actually believe it is in our or the worlds interest to let them crazy slimballs develope a nuclear arsenal. hell we might even get 20 years of peaceful co-existance if we just set back and say and do nothing. But wham. Now you got really big problems. Million man army, so f__'n what. If we have to we must and that is make it damn straight clear that we will not allow it. We will not tolerate it and any and all challengers must understand that we will not accept 19/3,000 scores. It stops or we will stop it by whatever means is required. If we must take out their mothers, gfathers, brothers, sisters and kids, so be it. It is a shame but this is the real world and unless we tell it like it is and do what we say we suck. We need to let them all know the score is going to be 100,000/1 our favor and we need to make damn sure we demonsatrate we mean it. I suggest if we do that we will find some of these loud mouths idiots a bit more coopertive when we say give us your terroist or we will come and get them. If you don't cooperate you will no longer be in charge. PERIOD. Beside it is an efficient way of reducing our un-needed extensive dtockpile of strategic arms.
Nope this is in regards to the recent post 9/11 missions into afghanistan where they were atempting to kill/capture OBL. a lot of our boys have put their voice out in at their disgust that the Americans imposed a lot of hierarchy on the missions instead of the norm, letting special ops go free and do what they want, in what they feel was an attempt to ensure they and all their departments were involved in any attempt to capture him for the glory and hence botced 3 seperate attempts. Again i'm looking for the source and I'll post the exact quotes and release date for the book. Was this saturdays edition of the Sunday express i think.
