The US presence in Iraq, how long?

Frank--
A non-creative rationalization and a spank of your buttocks.

Could we limit our 'busybodying' to getting whatever gov't they choose to stop short of inhumane treatment of citizens and the establishment and respect for equal rights-- and let them work their crazy magic within those loose perimeters? That's not really impeding their right to rule, is it?

Spanking: The Bushies never said precluded the possibility of an Islamic govt.

Theocracy cannot be democratic by definition. Any monotheistic religion contains absolute commandments that cannot be changed by means of parliamentary vote or poll. Religion does not tolerate any minorities; religion enforces moral by means of criminal law.
I am not so sure that Iraqi commoners really want theocracy. They merely lack information about any alternatives. The ones that are really interested in theocratic regime are clerics, and they do their best to prevent their commoners' access to information on the alternative models of functioning of state.
Many people in the West believe that Islamic republic is what the Iranians really want. In September 1995 the passenger plane of the Iranian Airlines was hijacked by the steward Reza Jabbari and it landed in Israel on the military base. The hijacker was arrested by the Israeli authorities, and the plane together with 177 passengers returned to Iran. But some of the passengers (absolutely random people that did not initiate hijacking) asked for political asylum in Israel. They were refused, and their names were kept in secret. But the episode shows the real relation of the common people toward the Islamic regime...

As I've suggested earlier in this discussion, I think the final product will be somewhere between what Egypt, Jordan, Turkey has. Can somebody with knowledge on these governments describe for us how these governments practice their 'secular' types of democracy? Sorry for the bad sentencing, but I can't seem to go back and revise my post. c.i.

Something that shows that direct American involvement in Iraq must be a long-term one:
The Mercury News

C.I., Egypt and Jordan are not democratic countries. They have moderate and pragmatic regimes, but democracy there is seriously limited.
Turkey is another type of country. Its secularity was forcefully imposed on it by the first president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, that technically was a dictator. Later, when the secular society was built, gradually democratic elements of the political system were developed. Turkish democracy has limited character: status of the armed forces differs from this in the other democratic countries. According to the constitution, the Turkish armed forces are guarantors of secularism and democracy, and it happened in the past that Chief of Staff HQ coerced political leaders to resign.

I think any further action on the spanking of my buttocks will have to be confined to PM's. I'm all for the idea.




I'm afraid it is, though. A democracy requires the power be given to the people governed. They may, by majority rule, institute damn near anything -- although "pure democracy" and "representative democracy" seem to be the most popular forms.

If we, as an outside agency, intrude in the process, the people of Iraq may end up having a government that works better for them and for the world -- but it certainly will not be a democracy. You can say a lot of things about a democracy, but you cannot logically -- or definitionally, impose it.[/quote]

Nonsense from two perspectives. One, not all religions are monotheistic -- and two, if you want to start a religion that does tolerate all those things you have stereotyped religions from tolerating -- you can do so.

You might say the things you are saying about Islam -- and you would be right. All religions that incorporate the god of Abraham are all of the things you mentioned.




Neither am I -- and chances are we will never find out. The United States will never allow them to choose that option -- no matter how much the Bush administration pretends that democracy is their ultimate goal.






Once again a parernalistic comment on the Iraqi people from you. Don't you tire of that?




This is something you know -- or something you made up that sounds good to you.?




No it doesn't -- and I am amazed that an intelligent person like yourself would pretend that it does.

What it shows is that some Iranians are dissatisfied with what they have in the way of government. I truly wish more of them would be dissatisfied, but we really do not know whether a majority does or not -- and speculations such as you are making are of no help.

Fringe radio this morning reported that there was an article in Ha'aretz laying out a deal (US/Israel) for an Iraq/Israel pipeline, presumably part of the Bechtel deal. Anyone here know anything about this? I've been schmoozing at Ha'aretz and have found nothing so far, but am having (possibly local) access problems -- very slow or not at all. Surprised I could get in here!

Neither is Isreal -- and neither, in a definitional sense, is the United States.

Many of the safeguards written into our constitution and its amendments are there to -- in effect -- stifle democracy. They are there to protect the minority from the inappropriate actions of the majority.

If the majority of people in this country wanted to exclude minorities -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Islamics, etc. -- from participation in basic rights they would be prevented from doing so by these laws. In a true democracy, the majority would rule on these issues -- and their will would prevail.

Frank

Thanks a lot for your responses!

We commoners better stick together.

How long did the allies stay in Germany after WW2, much longer than to establish the peace. We had to keep our troops there long enough to breed some new blood into the war like nature.

Steissd and Frank, I understand the limits of democracy in Egypt and Jordan, but what are some of the restrictions as opposed to what is enjoyed in the US? I have visited both Egypt and Jordan, and didn't see any restrictions on their freedoms. What exactly are their limits? c.i.

Welcome, Ibredd! Germany? After the War? Hey, we found a whole new enemy to hate -- the USSR. That one kept us going for years, made us build all those fab new expensive armaments, made a lot of people really rich, and began a series of military operations designed to use the wunnerful new weapons and make us feel strong. Oh, yes, war makes us very happy. And we seem to get a lot out of occupation too. Clever politicians! Brilliant, do-gooder military! "... and the rocket's red glare, bombs bursting in air..." OOOooo. Ah feel GOOD!

I read this in an editorial today and it sums up the Bush position on Iraq rather succinctly

The Bushies pretend that we don't want an all-access pass to Iraqi bases (we do); that we are not interested in influencing the disposition of Iraqi oil (we are); that we will stay out of Iraqi politics, even if they go fundamentalist (we won't); and that we will leave Iraq soon (we can't).

Well, one of the religions that incorporates God of Abraham is Christianity. But there are no theocracies in the Christian world except Vatican, and the latter country is not involved in oppression of minorities.

In meaning of direct rule of people none of the countries in the world is a democracy, I agree with you. But the direct popular rule has another name: ochlocracy; it is really unrestrained by any fundamental laws, and no legal protection of minorities exists. Such a situation usually exists on the early post-revolutionary stages, and later such ruling is being replaced by the power of elected representatives that are submissive to laws; this makes the political system civilized.
In the civilized world rights of majority are being restricted by laws, and this makes the life in the civilized part of the world quite tolerable. Both Saddam's Iraq and France have parliaments and elected president, but the main difference is as follows: while French refer to their president as to a high-ranked civil servant that is supposed to obey the laws, Iraqi president had power comparable to this of king Nebuchadnezzar that was superior to any law. Egyptian and Jordanian models are much closer to this of ancient Mesopotamia than to this of modern France, USA or Israel.
That is what I meant while calling these countries non-democratic; technically, they are absolute monarchies, regardless of the formal title of the head of state; absence of ochlocracy is not a sign of lack of democracy.
By the way, regarding free will of the Iraqi people. Only 60 percent of them are Shiites, and establishment of the Islamic republic of Iranian type implies oppression of 40 percent of population, that is about 10 million people. Islamic republic by its nature (see, Abrahamic religions, etc.) is not tolerant to minorities, therefore Iraq is the best example of counter indication for the absolute power of majority.

steissd

The French president is no civil servant but elected by popular vote.

Your definitions of democracy, monarchy are a little bit uncommon in political science.

The "only 60% of Iranean people" are those, who had nearly no rights up to recently.
"Islamic republic by its nature is not tolerant to minorities." I see.

I do not avocate their oppression and restrictions on their version of religious cult; but they should not be given absolute power either: this will make results of the war opposite to these that were planned.

the best laid plans of mice and men, not to mention Dubya, are wrought with unintended results.

Democracy's push, theocracy's pull

In war's wake: Is the Middle East bound for resurgence of radical Islam?

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The startling explosion of Shiite passion in Iraq is forcing US officials to contemplate the possibility that by toppling Saddam Hussein they have made the region safe for theocracy rather than democracy. There are many reasons to believe that Iraq will not end up as a mullah-controlled state - the next Iran. Shiites, while a majority in Iraq, must still strike some governing arrangement with sizable Sunni Muslim and Kurdish minorities. Iraqi Shiites are themselves split over how much religion should be intertwined with civil affairs.
But at the least the end of Mr. Hussein's police state has opened a land bridge between Iran's ruling clerics and Hizbullah and other Shiite-dominated terror groups to the west. The new boldness of Iraq's religious leaders could inspire long-oppressed Shiite populations from Syria to Saudi Arabia.
"Suddenly the Shia are feeling their time in history has arrived," says Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University in Washington.
On Wednesday Shiites celebrated the final day of their pilgrimage to a holy shrine in the central Iraqi city of Karbala. The pilgrimage was long banned by Saddam Hussein, who also murdered many leading Shiite clerics and brutally suppressed an uprising in the Shiite-dominated south of the country following the end of the Gulf War of 1991.
The pilgrimage has been marked by an eruption of piety among the faithful, and by chants of anti-Hussein, anti-American, and anti-Israeli slogans.
Asked about the demonstrations, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, civil head of Iraq until a new government is established, said Wednesday that they were evidence of the new freedom that Iraqis have to dissent. He also said a number of them were staged - presumably by Iranian agents said to have infiltrated Iraq in the wake of US forces."A majority of the people realize we're only going to stay here long enough to start a democratic government for them," General Garner said.
Shiites are a minority in Islam as a whole, making up some 10 to 20 percent of all Muslims. They believe that Islam's leader should be a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, while the majority Sunni branch of Islam has held that the religion's leader should be chosen by consensus.
In Iraq, Shiites are a majority of around 60 percent. Yet Sunnis have dominated the country from its founding in the wake of World War I through Hussein's tyranny.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq US officials seemed most worried that it was the Kurds, in the north, who would be the country's most independence-minded population. CIA and Special Forces officials did try to make contact with Shiite leaders, but had only moderate success.
One Shiite cleric who was working with the US, Abdul Majid Khoei, was murdered in Najaf earlier this month after returning to the country from exile in London. In retrospect this seems a sign of the turmoil to come.
Kept down by history and Saddam, the Shiites were bound to erupt, says Akbar Ahmed of American University. "The centrifugal forces have been released," he says. "If there is a democracy in Iraq ... the president will be Shia."
Furthermore, if Shiites do dominate the government, they might propose some sort of federation with Iran, Mr. Ahmed says. The result would be twin pillars of Shiite Islam - a nightmare for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and other Sunni-dominated states.
Iraq's neighbors are indeed watching the rise of the Shiites with trepidation, say sources in the region. Many worry that if the US is not careful, religious extremism could spread from the Israeli-occupied territories through Lebanon and the Gulf states, and into Syria and Jordan.
"The worry is there. We would be as displeased as the Americans," says a Jordanian government official.
But there are many reasons to believe that the current demonstrations do not reflect the full will of Iraq's Shiites, say experts.
Many Shiites in the country are followers of clerics who call for separation of "church and state" - though many others are indeed influenced by the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an exile group that has resisted US entreaties.
Furthermore, Iraqi Shiites are largely Arabs, while Iranians are Persians. And many are nationalistic enough to have fought without rebelling in Hussein's brutal war with Iran.
"Some Shiite leaders question whether Western democratic values are right for Iraq," says a Western diplomat in Jordan. "But the Shiites are not a unified group, and others have expressed openness to democracy."
FOR the short run, the US will probably try ensure that Iraq's government is a tripartite Shiite-Sunni-Kurd arrangement that allows all a measure of freedom, as in a federation. For the long run, the US is counting on the experience of sharing power, and the power of education, to accustom Iraqis to democracy instead of theocracy.
But if such civic life is seen by others in the region as being imposed on Iraq, the consequences could be very negative. The result could be further radicalization of Islamist groups, as is happening to some extent in Pakistan in response to the US expulsion of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"The clock is ticking, and the Americans have to quickly transfer power to the Iraqi people," said Jordan's King Abdullah in a broadcast interview on Tuesday. "The US has only one chance to get it right and win the peace."