Iraq - Democracy accepteble outcomes

[vonork]

So what if Iraq goes to the polls and after a totally correct election elects a non-US (& western world) friendly fundamentalist government, with all that it gives. That then kindly asks the US to leave, in 2-3 weeks. And under that time period all attacks on US troops stops - proving that there is no need for them to provide security. But of course if the US troops don't leave it would be considered by the new government as an act of war.

Would it be accepted or would the ellection be riged if that outcome was projected?

Or what would be accepted?

 

[Little Raven]

We might as well discuss what would happen if a Martian contingent landed in Iraq and offered to take over security.

No insult intended, vonork, but there is simply no way that Iraq is going to act as a unified nation anytime soon. It's cobbled together from three different peoples, all of whom hate each other. If we really do have fair elections, then the Shias will dominate; if that happens, the Sunnis and the Kurds will know trouble is coming. If the US leaves anytime within the next 3 years, minimum, Iraq will almost certainly dissolve into civil war. One side may win quickly, but war will almost inevitably result. Heck, civil war may break out even if we stay.

Much like the old Yugaslavia, Iraq has only stayed together as a country because there has always been someone ruthless enough to project dominence over the entire area. Keeping it intact without that kind of presence is going to be very, very difficult.

 

[Speedo]

That then kindly asks the US to leave, in 2-3 weeks.

Aside from the fact that that is impossible....

If they want to elect Mickey Mouse as their leader I could care less. Considering though that most of the people in Iraq who are "anti-US" are hiding out in holes in the desert, it's not likely that they'll get elected.

 

[Marla_Singer]

If they want to elect Mickey Mouse as their leader I could care less. Considering though that most of the people in Iraq who are "anti-US" are hiding out in holes in the desert, it's not likely that they'll get elected.

The fundamentalists aren't pro-Saddam freaks. The fundamentalists are actually religious chias who are gaining more and more power each day.

I don't understand well... do you think the two main parties of a democratic Iraq will be republicans and democrats ??

 

[EzInKy]

Their constitution will guarantee freedom of religion, and the US will guarantee their constitution.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by Little Raven
We might as well discuss what would happen if a Martian contingent landed in Iraq and offered to take over security.

None take, I was mere going for discussion on what outcome of Iraq goverment "we" would accept. And cuz as you say the Shias dominate (around 60%) they would become the dominate "party" in an ellection - no wonder one of the more dominating shias mullas want ellections.

But any ellected goverment might be more or less friendly of us... so would we eccept that. Or suport a Iraq army that would remove any ellected fundamental goverment? what would our possition be, and actions.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by vonork
None take, I was mere going for discussion on what outcome of Iraq goverment "we" would accept. And cuz as you say the Shias dominate (around 60%) they would become the dominate "party" in an ellection - no wonder one of the more dominating shias mullas want ellections.

Absolutely. Muqtada al-Sadr is real keen on elections and getting the US out ASAP. The Shias have been under the boot of the Sunnis for some time, and a lot of them feel it's their turn. Mind you, the Kurds have been virtually independant for the last 10 years, and I very much doubt they want to be under ANYONE.

God only knows what we'll do or who we'll support. While our general goals for Iraq have been somewhat constant, our policy on how to get there seems to change by the week. Who we'll support probably depends most on what kind of mood Rumsfeld wakes up in on the day that someone decides to make a move.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If the goal is to keep Iraq together over the long haul, theyre going to need a substantial army. Especially a few years down the road when our current allies the Kurds, suddenly morph into terrorists when they begin fighting the government we imposed on the country. No matter WHAT happens, Iran will have alot of influence in the Shia south.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I would urge the United States to not accept such an outcome or, better yet, to avoid such an outcome to begin with. It would be highly counter-productive. We did not remove a US-hostile regime to allow another one in.

 

[bobgote]

the US can't not accept the outcome. if an unfavourable result is forecast, they won't have elections, and simply transfer power to their governing council.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by bobgote
the US can't not accept the outcome. if an unfavourable result is forecast, they won't have elections, and simply transfer power to their governing council.

Solves nothing, though we may well end up doing just that. The governing council is a stopgap measure. It is rightfully seen as a puppet to the US occupation force lacking long-term legitimacy, and everyone in Iraq knows it. If we rely on it for too long, everyone will rebel against it, each for their own reasons.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Little Raven
Solves nothing, though we may well end up doing just that. The governing council is a stopgap measure. It is rightfully seen as a puppet to the US occupation force lacking long-term legitimacy, and everyone in Iraq knows it. If we rely on it for too long, everyone will rebel against it, each for their own reasons.

not if it's enforced, but then we're back where we were to start with.

better (for the US) the council rules by force than they lose their toehold in the middle east. other situations can be favourable, but this is a fall-back position if those don't look like they'll work to the US's favour.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by bobgote
better (for the US) the council rules by force than they lose their toehold in the middle east. other situations can be favourable, but this is a fall-back position if those don't look like they'll work to the US's favour.

Sure, it's a fallback position, but not a very good one. The only one who is going to enforce the Council's decisions is us. And that's very, very expensive to do. Right now we have a president that doesn't mind spending like a drunken sailor, but that isn't going to last. Soon we'll have to make some hard choices about where we put our money, and Americans will get tired of paying for an occupation REAL quick. We can't afford to stick around in Iraq, enforcing the decisions of a puppet council. We need a government that can take over and police the area for itself. In order to do that without constant proping up from us, it has to have legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Little Raven
Sure, it's a fallback position, but not a very good one. The only one who is going to enforce the Council's decisions is us. And that's very, very expensive to do. Right now we have a president that doesn't mind spending like a drunken sailor, but that isn't going to last. Soon we'll have to make some hard choices about where we put our money, and Americans will get tired of paying for an occupation REAL quick. We can't afford to stick around in Iraq, enforcing the decisions of a puppet council. We need a government that can take over and police the area for itself. In order to do that without constant proping up from us, it has to have legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis.

I agree.
The transition of power to the council will also involve the establishment of a security force. I don't think the Americans will get sick of the occupation cost-wise so much if they get their troops back.

 

[MrPresident]

1. American and coalition troops can not leave in 2-3 weeks. Simply impossible.

2. Attacks on American troops will not stop.

3. Any new government would not throw out the American military for the simple reason they do not have the capable. There is no Iraqi army at the moment.

4. There is no reason to throw out the Americans as they guarantee Iraqi security against themselves and more importantly against their enemies (*cough* Iran) in the region.

5. How could a "totally correct" election result be rigged. Either the election is fair and result stands or the election is rigged and the result is invalidate. If America seriously considered the possibilty of an extremely anti-American government being democratically elected within Iraq they would not hold elections and rightly so.

6. Any election riggering would be practically impossible considering the media presence in Iraq at the moment, particularly media not exactly favourable to the United States.

7. Any elected Iraqi government would not immediately take over power from America. It would be a step-by-step process with the military being handed over last.

8. I am sure the United States has already agreed a treaty with the Iraqis regarding any future military presence in the country. So such action would be illegal.

9. Any religious fundamental goverrnment elected risks civil war by its mere existence. If it declared war against the United States then such a war would surely become a reality.

10. This situation is so improbable as to not warrant any discussion, at least at the present time.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by MrPresident
If America seriously considered the possibilty of an extremely anti-American government being democratically elected within Iraq they would not hold elections and rightly so.

Now that would not be so democratic if the Iraqi population want that government.

Originally posted by bobgote
The transition of power to the council will also involve the establishment of a security force. I don't think the Americans will get sick of the occupation cost-wise so much if they get their troops back.

Now would not that only end in replacing one oppressing regime with another one.

Originally posted by MrPresident
10. This situation is so improbable as to not warrant any discussion, at least at the present time.

Well, when then? An early election will prob get the shias to dominate and the kurds have lives in basic self-rule since the Gulf War and they prob not going to accept that unless they get a lot of self-rule. Considering that the plan is to be to hold some sort of election or creation of government this summer the possibility for a not to western friendly government is not so far away.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by vonork
Now that would not be so democratic if the Iraqi population want that government.

It would not be democratic but it would be right. I don't want to sound patronising but let's be realistic, Iraqis don't know how the function within a democracy. They don't have the same tradition as is seen in western liberal democracies. This is not only limited to voting in extremists but is also seen in widespread corruption and the other facets of poor goverance. A parallel can be drawn with Weimar Germany. So I believe America and Britain should "supervise" a democratic Iraq to ensure its long-term survival. Obviously there is the problem of when such supervision should be stopped but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Originally posted by vonork
Considering that the plan is to be to hold some sort of election or creation of government this summer the possibility for a not to western friendly government is not so far away.

That may be but precisely when is this anti-American government going to declare war on America? Surely they would have to have some sort of military capable of defending Iraq before they took such action. So, how quickly will they obtain such a military?

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by MrPresident

It would not be democratic but it would be right. I don't want to sound patronising but let's be realistic, Iraqis don't know how the function within a democracy. They don't have the same tradition as is seen in western liberal democracies. This is not only limited to voting in extremists but is also seen in widespread corruption and the other facets of poor goverance. A parallel can be drawn with Weimar Germany. So I believe America and Britain should "supervise" a democratic Iraq to ensure its long-term survival. Obviously there is the problem of when such supervision should be stopped but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Right. They have to get used to the idea that democracy is not just majority rule, but also guarantees the rights and freedoms of minorities.

 

[Yago]

Well, the coalition forces (i.e. Americans and British) will have to do anything to make alliances with the different groups (I do not mean the 3 ethnicities), i.e. make deals do get good relations with the Iraqis. A majority of the Iraqi people somehow not happy with the coalition-forces would mean a nightmare for them they could not afford in anyway. Therefore I see a complicated give me this, I'll give you that construct of goverment in the end and no elections with not pre-picked candidates.

Right. They have to get used to the idea that democracy is not just majority rule, but also guarantees the rights and freedoms of minorities.

And there goes self-determination down the drain. It's good as soon we say it's good. If it's not good, it's not democracy. If it's not democracy, it's not acceptable and we're not done.

This whole thing will take a lot of time. A lot of time.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by vonork
Now that would not be so democratic if the Iraqi population want that government.

we're talking about what would be acceptable to the US here, and Mr.Pres is absolutely right. if there is a chance the US wouldn't win a vote, they would (rightly, and sensibly) not go down that path. It would be stupid.

Now would not that only end in replacing one oppressing regime with another one.

perhaps (but it's OUR regime), but for any government to rule, they will need a security force. simple as that.