News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[russ_watters]

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies in their past. Very few of them changed by invasions by foreign nations.

But such changes usually take hundreds of years and require the deaths of whole families of monarchs. The point is that as long as Saddam lived, the odds of Iraq becoming a democracy were virtually nonexistant.

Countries where others interfered are often STILL dictatorships, just like what will happen with Iraq.

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

 

[russ_watters]

You know I'd kinda be interested to hear what people have to say about the subject of the thread. You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?
I don't think that an invasion was the only way personally so please don't take this as some sort of defense of the US invasion. I seriously want to know what people think.

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

Oh and please stop the flow of reason's why the US invasion was wrong. We've all heard it several times now in several different threads, it's not the subject of the this thread.

I think you're missing a fundamental issue here: people would rather attack our methods/motivation and defend a murderous dictator (vanesch, saying Hussein was justified in annexing Kuwait) than have the moral courage to support what is right. What you (and the thread title) are asking requires people to admit something they don't want to admit: that had the US not taken him down, Saddam would probably have remained in power until dying of old age.

People are so afraid of the US becoming an empire, they will simply refuse to look beyond their perception of our motivations and examine whether what we did is really a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[vanesch]

No, vanesch, the 1991 war was not some border dispute (well heck, you tell me - is that a legitimate reason to annex a country?), it was the first step in an attempt by Saddam to take over the entire Arabian peninsula. Saddam owed Kuait and Saudia Arabia (among others) a lot of money after they helped him finance the Iran/Iraq war and rather than pay it back, he was just going to take them over.

The oft-cited approval of the US is similarly bogus: Saddam misread the reaction of our ambasador and made a big mistake. Yes, that's right, it was Saddam's mistake, not ours.

Some clarifications: I agree with you that such a border dispute is no reason to annex a country, and I think you (and a lot of others) where right to push him out of there. But the point was the following: even though the reading error was on Saddam's part, and it was indeed his mistake, I don't think that he really WANTED to piss of the US. He considered himself a kind of ally of the US (but wanted to take some local liberties and did some wishful thinking when reading the not-so-very-firm US answer).

So you tell me why you think this will be the first time the US fails to create a functioning democracy through an invasion and Marshall-Plan style reconstruction.

I told you: in the eyes of the people over there (and a lot of the rest of the world) you don't have any moral authority left, which is an essential part in such a plan. That's why it is failing. And that's why it worked in Japan, in Israel and in some other places, where you were considered to have such moral authority, for various reasons. That's why it started to work in Afghanistan, where you had that moral authority (self-defense) and why now it is sucked down because of the amalgam that is made with Iraq.

 

[vanesch]

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

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 ?

 

[2CentsWorth]

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 ?

Precisely, and this is the root of the argument pro-invasion members continue to avoid. How long was the Shah in power? Or Marcos? It is NOT US foreign policy to invade countries for purposes of regime change, which is illegal anyway. So why do pro-invasion members keep justifying the war based on removal of a ruthless dictator?

And as vanesh states, one can see many examples, such as Castro that ultimately has posed no real threat to US security--and certainly Saddam posed no 'clear and present danger' to the US either. Why should Americans pay the high price, and when we do, what makes anyone think the country we assist will embrace our ideal of government anyway?

I am beginning to think a study should be done on the water people are drinking. Something has been affecting their brains so that no matter how many times this is explained to them, they still do not get it.

 

[Burnsys]

So why do pro-invasion members keep justifying the war based on removal of a ruthless dictator?

As russ confirmed, Beign a rutless dictator is not a motive for regime change becouse us has supported and support a lot of other rutless dictators...
So that is not a valid justification for war...

It seem to be the way international politics works...

 

[Smurf]

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

I don't know about that Russ, what makes you think 99% of all dictators are preceeded by more dictators? I mean, I guess you could justify that figure by counting every single monarchy in the past 4000 years, but certainly the recent global trend has been to democracy has it not? In fact, there has been at least 5 successful, non-violent, democratic revolutions in the last 6 years. See: Kyrgystan (2005), Ukrain (2004), Georgia (2003), Phillipines (2001), Serbia (2000). Each one of these has produced democratic elections with less controversy than the US elections and in less time than it took the US in iraq. Not to mention, that they were all effectively non-violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_II

Let's not forget, of course, all the revolutions through the 1980s and 90s that overthrew the many dictatorships left over from former communist blocs.

Having said that: Democracy sux

--
Remember kids, wiki is your friend.

 

[Burnsys]

And you are forgetting all us backed dictatorships in latin amercia in the 70'..

Now we live in democracy (Some kind of ilusion of democracy) but well, democracy at last...

 

[Smurf]

Yup, like I said (or did I say this?) that's just a taste of the democratic movement recently. No history student worth their money is going to say that democracy isn't taking hold on all 7 of our precious Earth's continents... well, the 6 with people on them at least.

 

[Rev Prez]

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies...

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

 

[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