You know - Iraq does not have to be a democracy.

[Joe for Clark]

In fact, I do not want a democracy in the middle east at all. Not now.

And if we start from a premise that we don't need a democracy in Iraq there ARE possible solutions from the US point of view.

Joe

[IA_Seth]

1. Such as?

I guess I'd like to know what you are implying?

It seems to me that you may mean some sort of propped up despot, just like the US has done in the past when we didn't get what we wanted during 'nation building'. I might add that we've never been overly successful when doing this..

Blowback. Read it.

[Joe for Clark]

4. Of course I am implying a "despot" type of rule.

I am not implying it - I am advocating it.

If we don't manage to settle this Iraq situation down soon it will become regional. From the Iraqi point of view, I think they just want to know they can go to the market without being killed.

There may be two good sources to stabilize this - Personally, I would be looking hard at Sistani to lead. Absent this, or maybe in conjunction with it - is the Iraqi military capable??

Our interest, after all the BS - is just to have a country that will not threaten us - that is all.
Everything else is really up to them.

This isn't just a civil war anymore - oh no, it is a 15+ way cluster f-ck. Growing daily.

This could be done - absent "democracy".

There is an upside for us you know - foreign groups - "Al Queda in Iraq" - they will become the targets very quickly, too.

Joe

[independentpiney]

8. Like the 1st reply said- read Blowback

because that's what you get whenever you prop up a despot.

[Joe for Clark]

9. You talk in absolutes.

That is what we get whenever we do something??

You know, we survived the cold war by doing exactly that, supporting countries we didn't believe in. Including...Iran.

There are no absolutes in life.

There is a very bad situation facing us right now - and we better be thinking what is in our interests -

Joe

[IA_Seth]

10. Lol, and now we are suffering the blowback...

Our actions during the coldwar are partly responsible for the creation of the regimes we now face. Absolutes may be out of line but I can say with good conscience that ALMOST everytime we've propped up dictator we've paid in the long run.

I still suggest a little reading. Blowback and Sorrows of Empire for starters.

ON EDIT: I am not saying that we should stay until we get something we like, but we should keep our hands out of forming whatever is to come of the Iraqi government.

[Joe for Clark]

13. Well - nobody had to "duck and cover" for real, either.

I do not have a problem using situations for the benefit of our country - I really don't.
And the fact is, but for our country, the world would be in a dark age in any event.

Anyway, what is the real alternative here?? Isn't that the issue??

I'd take my chances with a non-democratic Iraq - so will the Iraqi's - over what is happening now.

And that is our choice -

Assuming otherwise is - to me -thinking in a box. That is the one thing we better avoid right now - the consequences are so dire. The ISG did not put everything on the table.

Joe

[IA_Seth]

21. I'm not saying democracy is the answer...

I am saying that we have two alternatives....

Allow the citizens of Iraq to choose whom they wish to lead them (and then abide by their decision). Without our meddling this will probably not produce someone that we are excited about.

Allow a warlord-type despot to seize control, someone that can reign in the various groups and eventually minimize the insurgency. This would lead to an ousting of Al-Qaeda to be sure, and will also likely lead to an ousting of the US.

Either way, if the US is involved in the election process, if we try to sway the vote to elect someone 'in line' with our views, if we prop up the despot that seizes control and provide material or financial support to this new dictator...we lose. We can't project American force on the Middle East and win long-term. It would take a cultural, societal revolution the likes of which their ancient culture has never seen.

We need to quit considering US hegemony and start considering compromise and living with something we don't like.

[Joe for Clark]

22. I understand what you mean -

And I know you mean well -

And I appreciate every voice right now - agree or not - every single opinion has a value.

If I projected otherwise - consider, I am an opinionated a-hole, I KNOW I am.

I do know - if we did dump the premises - there really are alternatives - but the country has to move past the facades.

Democracy in Iraq has become a bad joke. Just B*shes delluded dream at this point.

There are more than two alternatives if we looked at it that way.

Joe

[WinkyDink]

16. Well, Saddam is still available.

[Joe for Clark]

18. So maybe this should be his "penalty".

Lets give him Iraq back. Such as it is.

Joe

[Az]

2. It is not possible to impose democracy on those who do not wish it

As long as a majority favor a theocratic rule or tribal based seats of power then trying to force them into a democratic government is an exercise in futility.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Correct

Democracy starts from the people up, it's never worked any other way.

[stillcool]

3. Democracy...shumocracy...

what about the oil? When the only freedom is death, what's that called?

[walldude]

6. You are right, there are possible solutions, but until

the Administration actually comes clean with their conditions for "victory" we aren't going to get anything done. The entire problem with the Iraq debate is the liberal idea of victory is to save lives, the conservative idea is to make money. Until we all get on the same page this senseless war will continue.

[Joe for Clark]

7. This is exactly why B*sh was such a failure in business.

It is why he will be impeached.

Joe

[Junkdrawer]

11. Funny you say that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2817028

[Joe for Clark]

14. I think you need to understand something -

There is little doubt, if this was truly reduced to a Shia Vs Sunni conflict- there is little doubt the Sunnis would prevail in a very short time.

Makes this whole thing pretty weird, doesn't it??

Joe

[Junkdrawer]

15. Huh? The Shia are the vast majority and they would have Iranian backing...

I've never heard that conclusion before...

[Joe for Clark]

17. None the less, it is true,

Maybe it could be seen this way on the surface - but the trained army of Iraq, the officer corp certainly - they were Sunni. They knew the weapons stashes very well. Anyway, they are/were a trained army. If it comes to a real war - they go up against milita. Regulars vrs milita - it won't be much of a fight.

I am not sure where to point you to look on the internet. But I know it is there.

Iran can trian milita til it is blue in the face - it doesn't change anything.

Regular army (Sunni) taking on milita (trained by Iran or whoever). It will be a slaughter.

Joe

[Junkdrawer]

19. The Baathist army is gone. No tanks. No helicopters. Now, there is...

talk that the Saudis are ready to come in to back the Sunnis. And the Saudis are on a weapons buying spree...

[Joe for Clark]

20. Forget the Saudis -

The trained military that have given us such a hard time - tanks or no, helicopters or no - they came from Saddam's time. They were pretty good officers, as appears now. Giving us a hard time, for sure.

SO, if they were up against milita from Shia provences - you really think they'd have a problem??

I don't know anyone that thinks so.

It is like that.

Joe

[Igel]

12. I'd go for a kind of despotic Masaryk.

A strongman, but one that works to instill liberal ideas in society.

Actually, Musharraf's not quite there in Pakistan, but he's not far from it. (How's that for near-blasphemy?) As a military dictator goes, he's small potatoes, I actually wish he'd be a big thuggisher from time to time; but he's working to wean Pakistani society away from the horrible state ul-Haq left it.