If you were in charge in Iraq...

First, I would form a steering committee that equally represents the Shia's, Sunni's, and Kurds as well as men and women.

I would then gather all the local leaders and powerful clerics together and have them all executed to prove to the masses I am not to be trifled with.

Then, I would start selling Oil as a rogue state avoiding OPEC at all costs. With the money, I would start several socially progressive programs to show the masses I can be benevelant.

Then, I would take and rebuild my military and infrastructure to be able to defend my country without needing to worry over invading any of my neighbors to show the masses I can be peaceful.

Then, I would stamp out any fundamentalist Islamic organizations with the force of my new military. They will be offered an exit strategy and some money to leave, but if they choose to stay, no more bombings or suicides! Suicide bombers would have their remains thouroughly soaked in pig fat etc. to ensure the next bomber knows what will happen to his remains. This will show the masses I am serious.

Then, party time!

That's what I would do.

Titus wrote:

Democracy cannot be forced on a nation. Look at the history of US foreign policy over the years and you will see this to be true.

A democracy in one form or another is in place in:
Germany

Italy

Japan

All the above countries had some sort of totalitarian form of government until democracy was FORCED upon them by outside forces after the end of WW2.

As much as you try to alter and revise history Titus, you cant escape the fact that democracy has been a great boon for the prosperity and standard of living for those countries.

Does it negate all the good things that democracy has done for those countries because it was "forced" upon them?

The people of the Middle East need to understand that democracy is their ticket to the same level of prosperity that the West enjoys if they just give it a chance.

When trying to keep thugs in line, one sometimes has to act thuggish.

And I meant the word "friendly" in a international diplomatic sense, not in a sense you use with your personal friends. There's a difference.

Germany
Parliamentary government form 1848-1936.

Would you allow the people to elect an Islamic government? Would you allow the constitution to be based on Islamic law?

No to both. I would start them out with a democracy, establishing polling places and teaching people what democracy was all about. Then I would bring in thousands of international observers to ensure the first election was scrupulously fair. Then, once the Iraqis had a good taste of life out from under the boot heel of the mullahs, I would leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Hobit,
Indeed, both Germany and Italy HAD the frameworks of democracy, but their pillars were undermined by the totalitarian state and were reduced to 'rubber stamp' farces before they were disbanded.

As to Germany, one can argue that the start of the German democratic state was forced upon them by the Allied Powers after the end of WW One, although I will admit that my knowledge of this period is not extensive.

Japan could not have been called anything but a totalitarian state before the war.

Italy's parliament in it's current state is nothing like the weak 'semi-republic' that Mussolini ignored during his ascension to power.

The current incarnations of democracy in the above 3 countries WAS forced upon them by outsiders. Their Constitutions were designed to prevent a charismatic leader/dictator from ever taking control of their governments again.

THAT is the legacy we have in 'forcing' democracy.

I hope it works in Iraq ...
Only time will tell.

Then I would bring in thousands of international observers to ensure the first election was scrupulously fair.

What's the Iraqi word for Diebold?

But seriously, I do get what you are trying to say, I'd just avoid the stick approach and go for the carrot.

Our approach with Japan is a really really good model (though there are deep differences between the countries).

So the rationalisation of American pre-emptive war has now deteriorated from "they had WMD that they could give to the terrorists who attacked us any moment now" to "thats just what happens if you're not friendly to the US"?

Note the near-instinctive equation of all those who are "not friendly to the US" with "thugs".

Not ALL nations unfriendly to the US are thugs, but a bunch of tribal clerics trying to bring about there own version of a theology in Iraq are.

Don't read what's not there nimh. This refers specifically to the notion of keeping a new Iraq from devolving into the old Iraq

Not ALL nations unfriendly to the US are thugs, but a bunch of tribal clerics trying to bring about there own version of a theology in Iraq are.

What "old Iraq"? Iraq wasn't a Muslim state before the Americans invaded it - it was a secular dictatorship.

The definition of "thugs", as in, people we need to keep out of power by violence and occupation if need be, should be based on behaviour, not ideology.

And remember, I never said we should never allow a Muslim government, but that we should make sure that that Muslim government is on good terms with us.