Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece. Chili... So many dictatorships were turned into democracies by the people themselves, once their "uncle" pulled the plug. No grand scale military invasion was necessary. Sometimes it can take long. Sometimes it goes faster. Doesn't matter: it is my firm opinion that when a people takes (finally) his own destiny in its hands, that the result is always much better than foreign import with bombs and guns. Ok, sometimes you have to wait 20 years. So what ?

Twenty years... you're kidding right? In those areas which you have mentioned it took centuries. The people rose up to take their own destiny into their hands several times and the majority of these movements through out history have been rather violently and effectively crushed. In recent years, now you have a point but it took all those hundereds of years for the playing field to become leveled and for there to be other countries, without dictators/monarches, to assist and support the minor revolutions that probably wouldn't have succeeded without that support. To leave them to their own devices they would have failed or possibly just become banana republics.
So again the question is what sort of action on the part of the world community, if not invasion, should be taken to promote such revolutions and regime changes, violent or non? Say in this particular scenario with Saddam?

And I agree Russ that most likely Saddam would most likely have to be dead. That doesn't mean though that the world must wait for the man to die of old age. In this particular case there probably would have needed to be a military coup of some sort. Assasination would have only had him replaced by another dictator from his same regime but possibly not someone so strong willed. At any rate if the US had backed a military coup or someone wishing to assasinate him we would probably still be in a similar boat so far as international perception of the US. Just instead of being called a bully the US would be called a snake in the grass.

 

[Rev Prez]

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece.

This Eastern european countries were never under dictatorships, although they were totalitarian. The Soviets had one dictator, Stalin, and so have the Cubans. The North Koreans have had two. Mao doesn't even rate, and his rule while strong was still subject to the consensus of an admittedly weak central committee. On the other hand, the majority of African nations have had succeeding dictatorial regimes.

Rev Prez

 

[2CentsWorth]

...The point is that as long as Saddam lived, the odds of Iraq becoming a democracy were virtually nonexistant.

It would have been much more compelling if there had been some revolutionary movement within the country for the US to assist. In the meantime, people were not starving or being slaughtered in mass with exception of the incident in the south. There are always areas in the world where people are oppressed, suffering from violence, etc. -- some far worse than Iraq. Do you believe the US should invade all these places for purposes of regime change?

Iraq is already a democracy, Mercator. What makes you think it'll go back to being a dictatorship?

Iraq is a democracy? Geez, it's a good thing you said so, otherwise who would have known? If Iraq was allowed to be a sovereign nation, what makes you think it would not go back to a dictatorship (although probably Islamic in nature)?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://english.iraqdemparty.org/

 

[Mercator]

Totalitarian monarchy is a term without meaning in IR. And totalitarianism is native to the 20th century. Let's concentrate on dictatorship. You want to try again?

Rev Prez

So you are saying that you don't see the difference between Kaizer Wilhelm and King Albert of Belgium? A "totalitarian monarchy" expresses exactly what I mean, and most people would understand it. Good try, but let's go back to the discussion.

 

[Mercator]

Iraq is already a democracy, Mercator. What makes you think it'll go back to being a dictatorship?

Russ, I'm afraid that there are only two outcomes for Iraq: either a long term sustained occupation, or a real handover of power to the Iraqis, in which case extremism will without any doubt prevail. I don't see any chance for democracy in Iraq if it's left on it's own.
I see a ray of hope though, in that during the last Iraq meeting in Brussels, EU and UN pledged to join forces with the US to solve the Iraq problem. Face it, sustained presence of Americans alone, will only broaden resistance .The perception of the Iraqi people has to change from"being occupied" to being helped.

 

[Smurf]

dictatorship
n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

totaltarian
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

monarchy
n : an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority


The difference is insignificant in this discussion, if one exists at all.
www.dictionary.com

 

[vanesch]

It would have been much more compelling if there had been some revolutionary movement within the country for the US to assist. In the meantime, people were not starving or being slaughtered in mass with exception of the incident in the south. There are always areas in the world where people are oppressed, suffering from violence, etc. -- some far worse than Iraq. Do you believe the US should invade all these places for purposes of regime change?

Yes, I'm exactly on the same wavelength. I think there's a big difference between HELPING a people changing THEIR regime, and IMPOSING a regime change. Now, I know the objection to this: with Saddam in power, there was not much hope for an internal change for the time being. I know. So be it. It simply means you have to wait, and try to improve the situation, slowly. There was no urge. For instance, by lifting the sanctions, and by trying to get Iraq out of its isolation, and put pressure on him to respect more human rights, things could become better. It seems that sanctions for too long a time just confort the local dictator in its cruel attitudes: look at Cuba !
I take again the example of Libya: although Kadhafi can hardly be seen better than Saddam, his slow re-integration in the international community improves the life of the Libyans. So by judiciously playing the game of pressure, sanctions and reintegration, I think you can slowly improve things, and in the long run, this works way better than by brute force.

Now, one can object to this that such an approach is not efficient, not clear, etc... I admit that I don't know the exact best way of dealing with a guy like Saddam. But it is not because I don't know for sure how to heal a cancer, that this justifies hitting the patient on his head with a hammer!

 

[Mercator]

Yes, I'm exactly on the same wavelength. I think there's a big difference between HELPING a people changing THEIR regime, and IMPOSING a regime change. !

Yes, what a pity that the immensely brave Chalabi never had the guts to fight the Iraqi regime without his pockets stuffed by the US. Come to think of it, even AFTER his posckets were stuffed.
Did anybody here ever think about the fact that the situation in Iraq is not a balck and white one, with the good guys waiting to defeat the bad guys? Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

 

[vanesch]

Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

That's because the other neuron is occupied pulling the trigger

 

[Smurf]

Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

Can't really blame them. I mean, you've seen CNN and FOX right? That kind of news reporting is the only thing available to most Americans, they're being conditioned from birth to see the American way now.

 

[Mercator]

Can't really blame them. I mean, you've seen CNN and FOX right? That kind of news reporting is the only thing available to most Americans, they're being conditioned from birth to see the American way now.

But I still like them. It's a bit like a younger brother on drugs. He starts to live in his own world, cannot do without the drugs and does not care if he has to deal and steal to maintain his exhuberant lifestyle. He mistakes the freedom to enjoy life (democracy) with a necessity to force his drugged lifestyle upon others (invasion) Sometimes you want to beat the s*** out of him, but you keep on hoping he will return back to normal life. Right now he feels more an more isolated. If we don't care now he will turn paranoid. We have no choice but to help.

 

[Mercator]

Happy national day, BTW Smurf, although it's a day late. And thanks in name of my grandfather. Where I was born we had a Canadian tank standing in the middle of a crossroad the rememberthe liberation by your ancestors.

 

[Smurf]

Happy national day, BTW Smurf,

Thanks a lot.

although it's a day late.

Only in your time zone.

And thanks in name of my grandfather. Where I was born we had a Canadian tank standing in the middle of a crossroad the rememberthe liberation by your ancestors.

Hmmm.. ok, where are you from then? Netherlands?

 

[Mercator]

Thanks a lot.

Only in your time zone.

Hmmm.. ok, where are you from then? Netherlands?

Belgium, Antwerp.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now, I know the objection to this: with Saddam in power, there was not much hope for an internal change for the time being. I know. So be it. It simply means you have to wait, and try to improve the situation, slowly. There was no urge. For instance, by lifting the sanctions, and by trying to get Iraq out of its isolation, and put pressure on him to respect more human rights, things could become better.

Ok! Now we're getting somewhere!
So give me an idea of what you think would have been a good strategy. Any one else feel free to jump in too.
The reason for the sanctions were to put pressure on Saddam. As you stated that plan of action didn't work out to well. On top of that he found a way around them by making under the table deals. Even that took a power shift in other countries for people to be investigated and put on trial if I remember correctly.
What ideas do you/did you have and do you know of any plans of action that anyone else had?
Again... I'm not looking to try to prove anything here. This is a sincere request for peoples ideas and opinions on the topic.
It's a really sad state that a worthy topic of discussion has for the most part been ignored so that we can continue to bash on Bush and America. And that's another thing. If you want to bash on Bush I don't care. If you want to bash on the admin and politicians or even a particular party have at. But please don't bash Americans in general. There are several people on these forums alone that are American and who agree with your assesment of the war and possibly many other things. To lump them in with every one else does them a disservice.

 

[vanesch]

What ideas do you/did you have and do you know of any plans of action that anyone else had?

Not really, I agree that it is a difficult situation. But other examples show that dictatorships become more solid and harsh under prolonged imposed isolation (Cuba...). That doesn't mean that sanctions weren't necessary, but they shouldn't last for 10 or more years. It also shows that "re-integrated" dictators, after a passage through isolation, soften their regime (Kadhafi).
Saddam wasn't an imminent military treat anymore ; one should have worked towards softening his regime (human rights and so on).

These were some arguments I vaguely remember during the discussions leading up to the Iraq war. I'd also be interested in hearing more specific proposals, I don't know if there were any.

Political liberty is not *that* important (it can wait), when enough human rights and so on start to be respected. And in the LONG run, people WILL get their chance to go for a regime change themselves (or are in fact relatively happy with how things are). After all, sometimes a democratic regime can be more asphixiating than an enlightened dictator: look at Iran, where a religious zealot was *democratically* elected!
And if all this fails, then there is always the odd guided missile which can hit a really nasty bastard's car, no ?

But please don't bash Americans in general.

Apart from the occasional stingy joke, I don't bash Americans in general and I don't dislike them, or anything. That has been discussed at length in the Anti-Americanism thread.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And if all this fails, then there is always the odd guided missile which can hit a really nasty bastard's car, no ?

Hassan Sabbah thought that assasination was preferable to all out war since it saved us the expense of soldiers lives.
I thought that such an option would be better myself. Though as I pointed out earlier the US, or whom ever really, would probably still be thought ill of for doing such a thing. It would definitely save a lot of trouble though.

The last comment wasn't directed specifically at you. When the specific word "americans" shows itself in the bashing it just sort of touches a nerve. Not so much for myself but for all of my friends and other good people here that don't deserve to be bashed on yet fall into that category being bashed.

 

[Rev Prez]

So you are saying that you don't see the difference between Kaizer Wilhelm and King Albert of Belgium?

Where did I say that?

A "totalitarian monarchy"...

...is a term you made up.

...and most people would understand it.

Of course, and most people would understand "whazzup." It doesn't mean that it has any meaning in IR.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The difference is insignificant in this discussion, if one exists at all.

Where in the definition of monarchy is the qualification that the ruler governs absolutely, with no contraint by law or political opponents, or demands centralized control over "all aspects of life?" Is Queen Eliizabeth a dictator or a totalitarian? Where in the definition totalitarianism is it required that power fall to either a crown or any other individual authority? What in the definition requires a dictator to govern "all aspects of life" or to preside over a royal household?

Rev Prez

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Rev Prez, I'd have to agree that the distinction is minor. In practice either form of government can result in the same ends and abuses of power. Monarches have tended to be more concerned with the aproval of their fellow nobles than the people. Dictators have tended to be more concerned with the aproval of their generals than of their people. In both cases because they were worried about being assasinated or over thrown. And in both cases there are the exceptions where the people and potential revolution have been worrisome to the person(s) in power.
Arguing this particular bit of vocabulary isn't going to further this discussion.

 

[Mercator]

Where did I say that?



...is a term you made up.


Rev Prez

You are wrong. Type in "toatalitarian monarchy" in Google and you will find thousands of references, it's not because you don't get it that it does not exist. And now back to the topic.

 

[Rev Prez]

Rev Prez, I'd have to agree that the distinction is minor. In practice either form of government can result in the same ends and abuses of power.

The abusive nature of the government isn't relevant; structure is. One form of abusive state--the dictatorship--has a notorious longevity record; one that can be understood as a consequence of features unique to it and exclusive of totalitarian or royal regimes. Monarchy, of course, has even more staying power--totalitarianism has the worst record, with only a few states in the Middle East, Cuba, and North Korea with long-lived, well entrenched authoritarians hell bent on running peoples lives. Either way, monarchs aren't necessarily or even often dictators, dictators aren't inherently totalitarian, and totalitarian regimes--particularly of the Communist brand--were more often than not run by central committees; not single strongmen.

Arguing this particular bit of vocabulary isn't going to further this discussion.

No, it will. Mercator started this tangent by claiming that all democracies were at one point "dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies." The latter term is made up. It seems that Mercator would rather say that by present standards all democracies today descend from an abusive political and social structure; that, however, is not the point. Also, it's a bit irritating that he'd mention that all democracies descend from an abusive political past but fail to point out that it took centuries for that process to complete. Either way, my point still stands: unattended dictatorships have a poor track record of turning over.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

You are wrong.

Yes, I am. Its a made-up term you merely perpetuate.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Yes, I am. Its a made-up term you merely perpetuate.

Rev Prez

"string theory" is also a made-up term , so I am in good company. Do you always spend so much energy on useless discussions?

 

[Mercator]

No, it will. Mercator started this tangent by claiming that all democracies were at one point "dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies." The latter term is made up. It seems that Mercator would rather say that by present standards all democracies today descend from an abusive political and social structure; that, however, is not the point. Also, it's a bit irritating that he'd mention that all democracies descend from an abusive political past but fail to point out that it took centuries for that process to complete. Either way, my point still stands: unattended dictatorships have a poor track record of turning over.

Rev Prez

Your point is not a point, but an opinion. My opinion is that "attended" dictatorships by outside forces have an even poorer track record and most often transform in other dictatorships, simply because there is no sufficient basis within to support democracy.
Yes, it takes time, but if not enough time is given to let democracy root into the society, all efforts of bringing democracy to a country are useless.
Why don't you give a few examples of countries where dictatorships have been successfully replaced by democracy?
I give you: Spain: it took a long time, but Franco eventually died and Spain is now a democratic country. Portugal: no external intervention. Poland: no external intervention. Chechia: no external intervention and so on and so on. Now show me some countries that have been invaded.

 

[Rev Prez]

Your point is not a point, but an opinion.

It is not an opinion. It is a conclusion informed by the evidence.

My opinion is that "attended" dictatorships by outside forces have an even poorer track record and most often transform in other dictatorships, simply because there is no sufficient basis within to support democracy.

So where's the table of evidence showing us that transforming dictatorships into democracies is more likely to fail than simply leaving them be.

Yes, it takes time, but if not enough time is given to let democracy root intdo the society, all efforts of bringing democracy to a country are useless.

Unless you have some way of giving tangible meaning to "time," then the above remark is superfluous.

Why don't you give a few examples of countries where dictatorships have been successfully replaced by democracy?

Germany. Yugoslavia. The Dominican Republic. Also every abusive regime you listed lasted at minimum for three decades. BTW, what does Chechnya have to do with anything? It's not a dictatorship. It's not even a country.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

It is not an opinion. It is a conclusion informed by the evidence.



So where's the table of evidence showing us that transforming dictatorships into democracies is more likely to fail than simply leaving them be.



Unless you have some way of giving tangible meaning to "time," then the above remark is superfluous.



Germany. Yugoslavia. The Dominican Republic. Also every abusive regime you listed lasted at minimum for three decades. BTW, what does Chechnya have to do with anything? It's not a dictatorship. It's not even a country.

Rev Prez

It's Chechia, the former part of Checho-Slovakia
Germany was a democratic republic before Hitler took power. And who in his righty mind would have attacked Germany in the late thirties, if this nut would not have had his crazy plan of world domination and started invading other countries?
Yougoslavia: you must be kidding.
Dominican republic: agree.

 

[Rev Prez]

It's Chechia, the former part of Checho-Slovakia.

Oh, the Czech Republic. So what's this Czech dictatorship you're going on about?

Germany was a democratic republic before Hitler took power.

So, what's your point?

Yougoslavia: you must be kidding.

No, I'm not.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Oh, the Czech Republic. So what's this Czech dictatorship you're going on about?



So, what's your point?



No, I'm not.

Rev Prez

Sorry for the confusion,in my language it's Chech. Did you hear about the Soviet invasion in 1968? And the Velvet revolution in the late nineties? Are you going to claim US intervention for this too?

Germany can hardly be an example of your theory, if it already was a democratic republic and was only "attended" after Hitler was given free play for a decade or so.

Can you explain (in less than two book volumes) the situation in former Yugoslavia compared to now?

 

[Mercator]

From the CIA World Factbook:
The Czech Republic is one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. Growth in 2000-04 was supported by exports to the EU, primarily to Germany, and a strong recovery of foreign and domestic investment. Domestic demand is playing an ever more important role in underpinning growth as interest rates drop and the availability of credit cards and mortgages increases. Current account deficits of around 5% of GDP are beginning to decline as demand for Czech products in the European Union increases. Inflation is under control. Recent accession to the EU gives further impetus and direction to structural reform. In early 2004 the government passed increases in the Value Added Tax (VAT) and tightened eligibility for social benefits with the intention to bring the public finance gap down to 4% of GDP by 2006, but more difficult pension and healthcare reforms will have to wait until after the next elections. Privatization of the state-owned telecommunications firm Cesky Telecom is scheduled to take place in 2005. Intensified restructuring among large enterprises, improvements in the financial sector, and effective use of available EU funds should strengthen output growth.

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU. Other east Euroepan countries are following. The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey. Turkey wants to be a player in the European garden. For this, they even reinstated the Kurds as equal Turkish citizens. Te Kurds have been persecuted for ages. This enormous change happened without military intervention. The only thing it costs us is the price of solidarity. For making a more perfect and equal "network Europe", we are paying the price in the West of the Union. But we knwo that in the long term it's the only way possible. Americans prefer to keep their GDP high with all means. Just an observation.

 

[Rev Prez]

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU.

It's a prime example of the transformative force of the collapse of Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, a process which took two generations to complete. The EU had nothing to do with the Velvet revolution. Either way, we're not talking about a dictatorship here.

The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey.

Turkey was not and is not a dictatorship.

This enormous change happened without military intervention.

Lots of things experience enormous change without military intervention. We didn't have to intervene militarily in South Africa to end apartheid, nor in Israel to secure the roadmap. What's your point?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Sorry for the confusion,in my language it's Chech. Did you hear about the Soviet invasion in 1968? And the Velvet revolution in the late nineties? Are you going to claim US intervention for this too?

Why would I? It is in no way related to this discussion.

Germany can hardly be an example of your theory, if it already was a democratic republic and was only "attended" after Hitler was given free play for a decade or so.

Unattended dictatorships have a poor track of turning. You continue to confuse dictatorship with other sorts of political abuse, and then picking examples of totalitarian states that took sixty to seventy years to reform.

Can you explain (in less than two book volumes) the situation in former Yugoslavia compared to now?

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

 

[Rev Prez]

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

Uh, yes he was.

Rev Prez