What then?

[Blynn]

To me war with Iraq is inevitable, my question for this administation is what then?

What does the United States do with a country that has suffered under sanctions for some 9+ years. Will these citizens welcome us with open arms? After so many years under a dictator's rule will they accept Democracy? These are questions as a United States citizen that I would like answered before there is a war. I know that this is not an easy decision for my government to make, but this is something that I would hope is planned out and thought about before there is a war with Iraq.

Honestly, this is where I get stuck supporting a war (and I believe that there are some very good reasons for ousting Mr. Hussein), but my question is what then???

Does anyone have a possible scenerio to this outcome? Has this been discussed ? I know that it is hard to predict, but I am predicting a not to favorable outcome.

 

[strathyboy]

After all the Bush rhetoric about how little freedom and rights the Iraqi's have, one would hope that a democracy is in the works. But as has been shown in the example of Afghanistan, a democracy is unlikely to be able to unite the different factions and warlords within the nation.

In the end, I think stability is more important than democracy. If a "friendly dictator" needs to be put into place to maintain stability in Iraq and the middle east, then that is the course the Bush administration will likely pursue.

 

[Blynn]

My main question was how do a people that have been "brain washed" (my term) under the rule of Sadam suddenly accept a Democracy?

At one time I believe that the Iraq people would have welcomed a new and different government, but these people know and believe that the United States did put sanctions on their country for 10 years and they have suffered. There are some very hard feelings here!

Would any type or influence of United States government be welcome in Iraq???

 

[Red Panda]

Today at 06:53 PM Blynn said this in Post #1

To me war with Iraq is inevitable, my question for this administation is what then?

What does the United States do with a country that has suffered under sanctions for some 9+ years. Will these citizens welcome us with open arms? After so many years under a dictator's rule will they accept Democracy? These are questions as a United States citizen that I would like answered before there is a war. I know that this is not an easy decision for my government to make, but this is something that I would hope is planned out and thought about before there is a war with Iraq.

Honestly, this is where I get stuck supporting a war (and I believe that there are some very good reasons for ousting Mr. Hussein), but my question is what then???

Does anyone have a possible scenerio to this outcome? Has this been discussed ? I know that it is hard to predict, but I am predicting a not to favorable outcome.

I think that the example in previous Gulf war, as well as in AFghanistan, is worrisome.  In both cases, the US came in, got what it wanted, and then left again. 

In Kurdistan, it meant:

3. that President Bush made promises to them, in order to get their assistance during the 1st Gulf war;
2. rallying the tribes against Saddam and getting them to commit resources and troops;
4. watching them die as the US abandoned them on the hillsides of northern Iraq; and
5. watching Saddam punish them with airstrikes and gas attacks, while the US did nothing until after it was too late


In Afghanistan, this first meant arming the mujahideen against the USSR.  Then when the USSR left, we exited.  So the warlords (Taliban) who kicked the Russians out became the new monsters.  But by that time, we were long gone.  Now, after 9/11, we've had another war in Afghanistan.  But that's winding down as well, and the Americans are leaving before the job is over.  For Afghanis, this has meant:

1.  resumption of tribal warfare;
2.  re-institution of strict islamic law;
3.  farmers have gone back to planting poppies for the opium trade;
4.  women being forced back into the shadows

it was very obvious to the average Afghani what was going on, when the CIA literally bought the loyalty of various tribal chieftains with briefcases of money.  As soon as the money runs out, they either get more money from the US, or their loyalty is for sale on the open market to the highest bidder.

What strikes me as ironic is how similar this sounds to the foreign policy debacles of the 1950s and 1960s, during the height of the Cold War.  I guess we could forgive ourselves for those, since we were a young and naive superpower.  But now, we're the only remaining superpower in the world, and we ought to learn from our own history.   

 

[Aurelius]

In any case, democracy is not really a "type of United States government."

It is actually an ancient Greek concept which was later adopted by the Europeans (the Swiss have enjoyed since the 14th Century or thereabouts) and eventually by the British. America, Canada and Australia inherited this political system from Britain, the mother of the democratic West.

 

[Blindfaith]

Good morning Blynn!

I am sure that the current administration has a plan of action regarding this. 

Regarding Afghanistan and the skepticism of its political situation, they're better off now than they were 2 years ago.  Instead of looking at the glass half-empty, I try and look at the glass half-full.  Yes, there are warring factions within the country, but, Rome wasn't built in a day either (for lack of a better analogy).

The administration never said that Afghanistan would be perfect overnight, or even over a years time.  Making a 180 degree change from the way that it was takes time, and the same will happen in Iraq. 

There are many Iraqi's here in the US that want us to go over and overthrow Saddam, even if it means a war.  Why?  They want to go home to their country without the fear of reprisal, beatings, torture and/or death.  They want to live in freedom, in the homeland, without the concern of a dictator who is cruel and truly evil.

I support that 110%.  The Iraqi people will never become our best friends.  I don't see how that could ever be possible with our ways of life being so different.  But, we can certainly help them.

Sorry for rambling!  Let the critique begin

 

[Aurelius]

It's a terribly awkward issue. I agree that Iraq needs a regime change. I agree that Hussein has to go. I would even be happy to see him assassinated by the US, the UK, Israel... well, by anybody who's prepared to do the job, really! You could get the national Mexican bowling team to do it, and I still wouldn't object!

But it does leave us with the thorny question of who to replace him with. And who might that be? It's not easy to say.

Does anybody here know enough about Iraq to suggest a few viable alternatives? I certainly don't, but others may.

 

[Didymus]

ok SH is gone so who takes control then --his son? his generals ? He must have people loyal to him or he would not have been in power so long.
true democaracy cannot exist if there are slaves so the Greeks were not a democracy. the first one i know of was the Iriquois indians. they had "slaves" but not in the sense that the Greeks did.

 

[Red Panda]

Today at 08:48 AM blindfaith said this in Post #6

Good morning Blynn!

I am sure that the current administration has a plan of action regarding this. 

Regarding Afghanistan and the skepticism of its political situation, they're better off now than they were 2 years ago.  Instead of looking at the glass half-empty, I try and look at the glass half-full.  Yes, there are warring factions within the country, but, Rome wasn't built in a day either (for lack of a better analogy).

OK.  Change takes time. No problem so far. I disagree that Afghanistan is better off now, but later for that..

The administration never said that Afghanistan would be perfect overnight, or even over a years time.  Making a 180 degree change from the way that it was takes time, and the same will happen in Iraq. 

You're missing the point.  This isn't about change taking time, and people getting impatient with the pace of change. 

These changes you're talking about won't happen at all, because the US is de-emphasizing and pulling out of Afghanistan before the work is finished.  That is what we did the first time.  And given this administration's stated distaste for what they call "nation-building", how do you expect Afghanistan to get back on its feet?  Nation-building is exactly what Afghanistan needs, if it's to recover from this. 

Instead, what we're seeing is a return of AlQaeda terrorists in the country, as well as being re-supplied by camps in Pakistan.  Not to mention the four other items I listed above.

The USA's attention span is extremely short.  The country is like a huge, 250 lb muscular fifteen year old teenager - big on power, short on attention and follow-through, and extremely dangerous when it gets angry and doesn't understand complex issues.

There are many Iraqi's here in the US that want us to go over and overthrow Saddam, even if it means a war.  Why? 

Well, because they left the country in earlier years, for reason of oppression (religious, political, etc.). And they want to go to war, in order to regain their former positions, and also because they want to be a player in the new country. 

But these people didn't have to endure Saddam. They left to avoid all the misery and oppression.  But other Iraqis had to stay, they couldn't leave.  So what do you think the reaction will be of the native Iraqis, when all these expatriates come back home?  Do you think they're going to accept them, and let them run the country and the economy?  No way.  They didn't "earn their stripes" by living under Saddam for 20 years. 

And if we're going to start a war based upon what Iraqis do, or don't want, it seems to me we ought to be considering what the Iraqis who actually live in Iraq want - none of them are in favor of a war, even if it means getting rid of Saddam.  They feel like no matter what happens, they're going to get the short end of the stick in the end. 




 

 

[Aurelius]

Disagree.

true democaracy cannot exist if there are slaves so the Greeks were not a democracy.

True democracy is about the structure of the government, not the freedom (or lack thereof) which its citizens may or may not enjoy. Remember that the British, American and Australian governments all considered themselves democratic, even in the days when the right to vote was restricted to white males.

What you have here done is to confuse democracy with human rights. The two concepts are not equivalent, nor do they have any essential correlation.

The Greek system was a form of representative democracy. It was therefore a genuine democratic system.