What Post-War Model of Government for Iraq?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Orson, Mar 1, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Looking ahead of a post-war Iraq, what model of government will be developed?

    The early sounds favor a federation--divided by region or ethnicity or religion. But what next?

    What, further, constitutional model might be pursued? The Tukish example looms largest. Eighty years of effective democracy, interrupted three times by temporary military rule. Could this be an acceptable example?

    Apparently, the tradition of civilian rule--after Ataturk declared separation of religion from state--is well entrenched. But, remarkably, in contrast to western democracies, the ultimate guarantor of order and defender of the constitution is the military!
    That's where their ultimate loyalty rests.

    But Turkey has a very special military: they are educated in western European languages, the liberal arts, as well as the arts of war. For peoples innured to a religion of "submission," with an ancient militarist tradition (Jihadism), and considering how the transplant patient is more Arabic than not, and therefore highly respectful of brute power, a Turkish model of balance of powers strikes me as the likeliest one to emmulate, even though very alien to the West. But can it pass muster?

    Opinion? Debate?

    --Orson
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2003
  2. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Turkish model of government?? I bet the Kurds would like that one.

    I am not sure if the allied forces, soon to be invading Iraq, will be in any position to decide how Iraq is to be ruled.

    I am sure that installing a friendly government is the best to hope for.
     
  3. timothyrph

    timothyrph New Member

    Ultimately it is up to the people of Iraq to decide rule for Iraq. Spreading democracy and freedom is truly a noble goal, but that is assuming a lot. Democracy does not spread well with a knife, and if people are not vigilant, it does not last.

    Our goal is simply to stop a madman from building weapons that could kill millions, while punishing those who support terrorism against us. If the missles are dismantled today, that might delay things a little. As of right now, Saddam is still in power.

    No matter what happens the governement eventually will not be friendly. We could never make these people our friends, they hate us. Saudi Arabia only liked us when Iraq was knocking on their door. Remember the scenes of dancing in the streets after 9/11? I am not sure we can hope for friendly, I will accept fearful. At least that can be comprehended.
     
  4. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    This is true. that is, democracy requires strong leadership to blossom and last. It gives power to the people, and the people need strong leaders they trust at an early stage, I suppose, that can govern their differences gently enough to last, strongly enough to maintain order.
     
  5. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Time has "Looking Beyond Saddam" story...

    Most detailed report yet on this issue:

    "If invading troops topple Iraq's dictator, Washington will inherit responsibility for a bitter, factious country. Here's TIME's look at the blueprint for remaking the nation—and the Middle East."

    http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030310/story.html
     
  6. Orson

    Orson New Member

    OxBlog's David Adesnik summarizes latest debate over Post-War Iraq...

    [All _hot links_ in original indicated thusly:]

    _Daniel Drezner's_ brilliant column in TNR exposes the false premises of the nonstop talk about how hard it will be to bring democracy to Iraq. As he observes,

    "...it is intellectually fashionable these days to believe that local conditions always triumph over grand theory. But the local conditions argument overlooks a crucial detail: Over the past century, international factors have been more important than domestic factors in determining the success of democratic transition and consolidation. And the international factors surrounding Iraq are more favorable than one might think.
    Read the rest of the column to find out what those factors are." (_Tony Smith_, if you're reading this, I know you deserve credit for the 'international factors' argument as well.)

    The bad news is that international factor #1 (the US government) can't get it's act together. Also in TNR, _Lawrence Kaplan_ provides a devastating account of the State Department's efforts to trade democracy for stability in postwar Iraq. [Full text for subscribers only.]

    Foggy Bottom's strategy for ensuring stability is to leave most of the centralized Ba'ath power structure in place after the war, rather than signing off on a federal constitution that would give considerable authority to Iraq's provincial governments. As _Jacob Levy_ explains in (guess where!) TNR, a federal state structure is the best means of balancing ethnic voting blocs as well as stopping authoritariansim from emerging at the center.

    The main flaw in Kaplan's account is its whitewash of the Iraqi opposition-in-exile supported by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. As both _TNR_ and _OxBlog_ have argued, however, there is good reason to believe that the opposition-in-exile is power hungry, incompetent, and unable to command the loyalty of anyone actually living in Iraq.

    Thus, an extended US occupation may be quite a good thing if it gives time for indigenous democratic forces to organize themselves and draft a workable constitution. If the State Department directs the occupation, that may never happen. However, there are signs that the Pentagon will insist on taking control if an extended occupation is what the president decides on.

    So things may work out all right in the end, thanks to a strange sort of dumb luck that combines the best of the Pentagon and State Department's flawed proposals for rebuilding Iraq.
    http://oxblog.blogspot.com/
     

Share This Page