Post-war Iraq

I guess I'd say that iraq should be able to install a new government, but that some force (UN) should be there to help and keep things peaceful. I don't imagine we'll get all the 'bad guys' with this hideous war, so someone needs to be there to keep an eye on them until a new government is strong enough to withstand bullying.

Of course, will that happen? I can only hope so.

By the way, welcome to a2k dafdaf.

I believe the difference of the two positions is that of spans of time considered.

Well I think ultimately we'd all agree that the people of a country should controll how it is governed.

The two extreme views would be to give Bush complete governing of Iraq in the meantime, or the Iraqis themselves. Putting Bush in charge would be catastrophic for international relations, and he has no experience in setting up successful governments in the middle east. I also think it unwise to give Iraq's people full control immediately as the task of repairing the landscape, let alone the infrastructure and economy, is growing with difficulty with every bomb dropped.

With Bush and Blair turning their backs on the UN, risking it's very survival, I believe that giving the UN a large part in Iraq's rebuilding would help save the organisation, restore some international relations, and would give Iraq the best chance of a full recovery.

dafdaf, welcome to A2K.

An observation on yr poll choices - u have "Bush elected govt" and "US elected govt" - any particular reason why you think these two are different ?

IMO, Bush never intended to go the UN route for post Iraq governance, even though enough lip service was paid to this fact by his administration. To give a very simple reason, they have just spent $80 billion or so getting rid of Saddam - they have to recoup the money somehow. It is in their interest to have their stooge up in Baghdad - atleast till the time they can recoup the money.

I disagree that the US government will treat this like a simple investment.

American interest in Iraq are not necessarily dollar amounts.

In the poll I'd have voted for an Iraqi elected government, self-determination being a right of course.

But there will have to be an interim. I think there will be a US imterim government with as much UN involvement as the UK is able to get. America will ecrtainly at least concede a large humanitarian role for the UN.

"As we move toward a new Middle East over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous. We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

--Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who has been named as a candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq

I don't even know what he means and it's scary...

Actually it was a tongue in cheek option. I've become very aware recently that what we call a democracy really isn't one. For example, if an MP goes against the government, his job is on the line - in a democracy surely all apposing views are saught after? Likewise, we keep getting involved in wars subjecting democracy on various countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc etc) but surely that's hipocritical?

The reason i gave the option of Bush or US, is because Bush could impose his choice, or let the people vote for theres.

The latter sounds worringly rediculous...

Bush administration officials are saying it'll take six months to establish a Iraqi government. Ha, ha, ha..... c.i.

I think folks will project a post-war Iraq governance based on their notions of what factors motivated the US to begin this project. Those who hold that the US went in to 'free the Iraqi people' will likely assume governance to head in that direction. As I personally think such a view is supported only by rhetoric, and not by any evidence or historical precedent, that consequence wouldn't be my first bet.

I am actually not at all sure that the US will ever leave Iraq. That is, I think it certainly possible, perhaps even most likely, that the US will maintain Iraq as the base of its military presence in the ME. The advantages, for the US, to such an arrangement (cheaper, faster military access to the area, stability of oil supplies, protection of client-state Israel, freeing the Sauds from the PR problem of US presence, etc) will likely be far too tempting to pass up.

Therefore, I'd posit a post-war administration which denied the UN any effective decision-making control, an increasing US corporate presence in the country, financial and PR support to whomever is deemed most compliant with US plans, controlled media sources, and, when the results can be predictably agreeable, elections.

Very good, spiky, question dafdaf, welcome.

Who should govern Iraq once the war is ended?

I'm not sure.

If we want a humanitarian approach that would lead faster to self-rule, then it should be the UN, with special leverage of the US and the UK.

But in that case, we'd have the UN paying the costs (both political and economical) of a war waged against the will of the Security Council.

If the recomposition of Iraq is, mainly, an American project, why should the others contribute, except for strictly humanitarian aid?

Why should the UN do the politics while the US has the military control? Or, why should the Blue Helmets replace the G.Is in exercising military control?

I still don't have a clear opinion. But I think my doubts are valid.

blatham, You read my mind - as simple as it is! LOL c.i.

Whenever i'm faced with a problem like this I remind myself about what I want the world to be ideally. I would love their to be a world without conflict, hunger, overcrowding etc. For such a world to exist, the resources need to be fairly exchanged, global problems need to be globally countered, and we have to have defenses against the occasional Hitler/Dr No maniac who'll pop along from time to time .

To achieve such a world, we obviously need the powers of the world to communicate and negotiate. We need the UN.

The UN is very far from perfect at the moment, but we need to give it more power rather than undermine it, which is where this war actually worried me the most.

It would however be wrong to give the UN exclussive power to restructure Iraq, because the UN needs to exist as a stateless structure, and because the people of Iraq have a right of say in their own future.

I think the Iraqi people should have their views listened to, the UN should make the changes the people ask for, and the US should damn well pay for it.

dafdaf, Your quote: "It would however be wrong to give the UN exclussive power to restructure Iraq" is the same opinion as mine. I do not believe the UN will do any better than any unilateral control by the US. They are both wrong at this stage in the UN's inability to enforce many of its resolutions. However, I believe it is necessary to include the most influential countries in this world which includes the US, UK, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, and probably several more that I can't think of at this moment. I think Rummy wants to run the whole show, but I hope he is put into his little box with no influence on any decision in this matter. c.i.

The point is: How the smeg is the UN going to stop Rummy from running the show? The UN may be (one more time) part of the political "collateral damage". We don't want that to happen, do we?

Very much what I would have replied, only I probably would have found a way to make someone mad in the process... :wink:

Glad you're still dabbling in the political discussions, Craven.

The one underlying assumption that the American government is making is that a democratic Iraq will result in a pro-western Iraq.

What the United States has never understood is that democracy can often strengthen anti-western elelments. Thats one of the reasons why they support so many dictators in the region; because they know thier democratically elected counterparts would be far less sympathetic to American interests.

Iraqis do not neccessarily want a Western style government and there is no indication they will elect one. This has been the case in Algeria (1992), Iran (1979), and would also be the case in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt if democratic elections were ever held.

My prediction: The American government is going to have a rude awakening when they realize that democracy doesn't equal Westernization (for the umpteenth time).

There is a lesson to be learned from the mixed reception that US troops have recieved freom the Iraqi's. The people of Iraq don't like Saddam Hussien, but they sure as hell don't like the Americans much better.

This just in, straight from the horse's (GW's) mouth.

"The I-rack-ie people are purfectly capabull of governin
thamsel-ves."

Now we know the answer. See, all you have to do it listen, and you will be told.

Lola

Very cute, though treasonous. Please turn yourself in.

IronLionZion

I think you are absolutely right as regards what future elections and 'democracy' will look like. Anything too unpredictable or not ammenable to direction by American interests won't be allowed. That alone gives us some idea of how long the US will keep a significant military presence there, even if their long term goal is different than I positied above.

But there is one sense in which I think this might be a good thing. Democratic elections in the context of a society not previously or not stabley bolstered by traditions and institutions protecting civil liberties, particularly where there has been deep ethnic strife, might very well get ugly.

But of course, this doesn't give any legitimacy to the US controlling things when that could be done by the UN.

Relief workers stepping gingerly into the postwar pieces of a police state are finding something akin to anarchy in Iraq (news - web sites): angry urban areas that need water and medicine but that are too unstable for somebody to safely deliver it.
The military push to Baghdad has left behind cities empty of police officers and filled with chaos, casualties and the rampant looting of everything from medicine to ceiling fans, humanitarian workers say. Baghdad itself has hospitals overflowing with so many dead and wounded that the Red Cross has lost count.
The U.S.-led military has restricted the access of most humanitarian groups to near the border with Kuwait, but one of the first experts to make an assessment as far as Basra said a breakdown of civil society there is a bad sign for the rest of the country.
Iraq's second-biggest city has an acute shortage of drinkable water and signs of dysentery in children, traditional precursors to such killers as cholera and typhoid, said Michael Kochler, deputy Middle East director for the nonprofit International Rescue Committee