The official blog of the Libertarian Party
August 22, 2007
Optimism fades for Iraqi democracy
In a follow up to yesterday's blog entry regarding re-intervening in Iraq with US officials' calls for Prime Minister Maliki's removal, CNN has published a very interesting article about the diminishing optimism of American officials for democracy in the Iraq.
Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.
It appears the reality of the situation in Iraq is setting in. This article comes at a very interesting time, as that some Congressmen who were previously against the Iraq war are now calling for more time after seeing positive results from the troop surge. One of these individuals is Washington Congressman Brian Baird, who said he would now like to see the troops stay until Iraq was stable and secure. But many in the United States have little faith that stability and security will come through a democratic form of government.
But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.
These sentiments seem to be catching on, and for good reason. Despite military successes in the country, the Iraqi government has still failed to unite for any tangible progress in the country, except a month long recess for a little R&R. Meanwhile, the country's infrastructure is failing, and even things like electricity and water are unreliable for most of the country.
The U.S. government has long cautioned that a fully functioning democracy would be slow to emerge in Iraq. But with key U.S. senators calling for al-Maliki's removal, some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.
The question regarding Iraq in the next month will be the balance between continuing with military operations and the risk that a democratic government in Iraq may never occur. The tough question that will have to be answered is how long do American troops stay while Iraqis figure out the next step towards political stability. Additionally, the U.S. will have to decide if it's going to give the Iraqis more freedom to do this.
Iraqi government officials concede things aren't working, but they say that's because the United States doesn't allow Iraq to really control its own destiny.
Without the United States granting the Iraqis a more central role in establishing their country, one can reasonably expect conditions to remain the same. However, by releasing control of the country to Iraq, the U.S. may very well see a non-democratic form of government take place.
Although at this point, it seems to be a welcomed change of pace.
Posted by Andrew Davis at August 22, 2007 04:31 PM
Reader Comments:
Expect the apologists (example: Joe Scarborough) to take advantage of this to further their agendas. I also know a lot of things that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and whatnot won't tell you.
"Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security."
Now isn't that what they had when Saddam was in charge. So basically, what they are saying is that all the money that was spent and all the lives that were lost, may have been for nothing except to give us more terrorists and less freedom.
The idea behind the Iraq War is that the world will not be free, prosperous, happy, and peaceful until the Middle East is free, prosperous, happy, and peaceful.
Whether Saddam had WMD or not was beside the point. He would eventually obtain them if he already didn't have them. He proven himself to not be a fit dictator when he invaded our friends and trading partners in Kuwait for no reason other than to expand his empire.
It wasn't our intervention. It was Saddam. As it wasn't America's intervention for the mess in Europe, it was Hitler. It wasn't America's intervention when the Jews fled slavery. It wasn't American's intervention in Afghanistan, it was Russia.
The criminals are the ones who overstep their borders. We can't let criminals extend their power over the borders of our friends because eventually it will be our border being stepped on.
If your best friend was attacked by criminal on the streets, would you keep a non-intervention position? Should the police keep a non-intervention policy?
You can't let your political philosophy blind you from reality, when the reality is that your political philosophy could be misapplied.
Win or lose in Iraq, I'm proud of Bush and the armed forces for trying to bring a greater peace and freedom to the world. I wish I was young enough and fit enough to go myself.
The loss of life is tragic. War is tragic. However, sometimes we have to fight and risk life in order to bring a greater peace, a greater life for our friends and for ourselves.
Keith, you said: If your best friend was attacked by criminal on the streets, would you keep a non-intervention position? Should the police keep a non-intervention policy?
I think this is the first clear explanation and reasonable argument for a non-interventionist policy I've ever read.
But I still disagree.
ONE, If I see them in the middle of a physical dispute, how do I know my friend wasn't the agressor and that the supposed "criminal" wasn't acting in self-defense?
I'd do my best to separate the two, with the aid of others or if by myself, legally owned arms, but I wouldn't act as judge, jury, and executioner which is what the US did.
TWO, that's what the police are for. We created an international body called the UN just for this.
You assume it's the US's role to play policeman just as you assume I HAVE to defend my neighbor's property. I am RESPONSIBLE for MY property. I can CHOOSE to aide my neighbor, and I'll HAVE to bear the consequences and take responsibility for my CHOOSING to do so.
Regardless, we're only debating the merits of intervention vs non-intervention.
Our Constitution has clear limits on our abilities to act as an international police force, and debating the merits of an interventionist vs non-interventionist policy is fine and dandy.
But to act around the Constitution is ILLEGAL.
If we want to intervene, declare War as the COnstitution says we must. Or change the Constitution using the processes in the Constitution.
We have done neither and the majority is being held responsible for the bad decisions of a few. Not just by terrorists and dictators, but economically, politically, and socially as well.
We have much fewer freedoms now thanks to our constant unConstitutional wars. We are in debt. And everyone is gunning for us while we continue to lose friends who would come to our aid on moral principle as you advocate in your argument for intervention.
Who wants to help a bully? We have to pay M.E. countries to keep up with their armaments so they could stay on an even keel with Israel, a country we also finance. We have no friends anymore. Just employees dying to be the boss.
Well said Will. I was about to crack this Keith guy over the head with a World Police billy club, because if I see someone attacking sane and resonable thinking, I have to intervene.
I read some good reasoned arguments regarding intervention v. non-intervention. However, I wish to address the issue of whether "democracy", a term I use loosely here, can work in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I have briefly reviewed the history of Iraq and have not identified a period in its past where its citizens enjoyed political autonomy or a basic "democratic" or representative structure.
Interestingly, except for that period in antiquity where Mesopotamia was considered the "cradle of civilization", under the influence of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians, Iraq appears to have been ruled either by outside conquerors or by the dictators, kings, caliphates or warlords who ruled after the conquerors withdrew from the area.
From this brief and admittedly loosely factual summary, it appears that Iraq is simply going through its historical motions from dictator to conqueror to dictator again.
As such, the issue, then, becomes this: Where democratic processes (and individual liberties) have been traditionally absent from a culture, is it more likely than not that the same culture will revert to that former state of political rule rather than seek out a democratic type of rule?
Interfering in other countries squabbles is like trying to help domestic violence victims. They don't want to be beaten, but when the police arrest the abuser the victim not only doesn't press charges, she goes back to the guy. Then he beats her again, the police arrest him, and she goes back to him. Why do we think we can solve other people's problems when they have not acted responsibly when helped? Do we think that a democratic Iraq will not have problems without us? They have problems WITH us. What's the difference? We gave them freedom from their dictator. They have failed to act responsibly with that freedom, partially due to the false idea they would all be happy. Let us not forget the Sunnis had it pretty good under Saddam. It was not only foolish to think they wouldn't be unhappy, but it was also foolish to think the Shiites would let the Sunnis off the hook for supporting Saddam.
Clay, most civilizations were not originally democracies, yet many countries have grown to enjoy it. I haven't lost hope for the Iraqis but they should have it on their own terms, not ours.
Why do I keep getting censored for malicious comments when I have rarely ever used any? Are their trigger words? So much for liberty.
| 
Expect the apologists (example: Joe Scarborough) to take advantage of this to further their agendas. I also know a lot of things that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and whatnot won't tell you.
Posted by: Shane Skekel at August 22, 2007 05:31 PM