Iraq Politics Poses Dilemma for U.S.

Associated Press ^ | Jan 18, 2004 | HAMZA HENDAWI

[optimistically_conservative]

Search on title came up nada

[Terpfen]

Er... am I the only one who doesn't think this will be a problem? Just set up a system of federalism, with a federal government with a similar structure to ours. Base one house of Congress on population, the other on the total number of provinces, and each province gets one vote.

Everyone's happy, strife is avoided, we win.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very interesting!

See this from an Iraqi blog:

4th Infantry Division 24 Hour Activity + late CJTF7 post: 4ID Soldiers Find Weapons Cache

[optimistically_conservative]

Thanks for the link!!

Interesting times ahead as the Iraqis define a new national identity or collapse into ethnic anarchy.

[Paleo Conservative]

and each province gets one vote.

Why just one vote? If that office holder dies, there is no one representing that province at all! Why do you think the US Senate has two senators for each state? That way when one senator retires or dies, the other senator become the senior senator while the new senator learns the ropes.

[hunter112]

I think that we'll have to set up a federal system, just to get out, but I see it devolving into a set of separate states, ala Yugoslavia. If we hadn't made the commitments to keep Iraq united, we'd be doing it that way now.

[luvbach1]

Democracy won't work in Iraq because too many Iraqis don't want it. They equate it with forced westernization. And least of all would they want a government patterned after the "the Great Satan, the United States.

[Rockitz]

Iraq is an extremely uneducated third world country that has a source of income (oil), but no clue on how to govern itself. Until such time as there is a reasonable percentage of literate citizens, it should be run by the US. If we let go of it now, it will turn into a theocracy and any semblence of individual rights will be lost.

[optimistically_conservative]

From what I've read, the Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranian Shi'ites are not aligned.

[Rockitz]

I saw this story on Friday and said basically the same thing. The US negotiating with Sistani is the beginning of the end. Get ready to make some hay RATS, here comes some major quagmire.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1059425/posts

[optimistically_conservative]

It feels like Iraq's slipping, with us running to the UN for help with Sistani.

Iraq needs some strong national political leadership, and the GC and CPA are being nice guys holed up in their secure palaces.

[hunter112]

Democracy won't work in Iraq because too many Iraqis don't want it.

The same point could have been made about the Japanese after WWII. One of the smartest things that MacArthur did was to give their women the vote, and its one of the bright things we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Can you imagine what would happen to those fat cat Saudi princes after we give their women the vote!!!

[mrustow]

"There isn't going to be a new plan," said the official, who declined to be named. "Shiites have a profound fear of being deprived again of a meaningful voice and are worried that they may lose in the caucuses system. But we will do everything we can to improve the plan."

Bull. Sistani has no "profound fear"; he wants to make a power grab, pure and simple, and install a theocratic dictatorshiop. That's why he wants a "pure democracy," rather than a federalist system.

[luvbach1]

Democracy won't work in Iraq because too many Iraqis don't want it.

The same point could have been made about the Japanese after WWII.

I think the Japanese were much more receptive to democratization than the Iraqis are or will be. And ironically, to a considerably greater degree than the Iraqis, the Japanese wanted to emulate things American, Besides, they were the vanquished and had no choice. And we did not have to contend much with world opinion as we do now. Also, the Republicans were not a fifth column trying to undermine the Truman administration and hurry its departure from Japan. And we did not have terrorists to contend with in Japan. Establishing democracy in Iraq is much more difficult than it was in Japan.

[Rockitz]

I can't believe the liberals haven't jumped all over these stories. As I said when I posted the "U.S. seeks compromise with cleric" story on Friday, this is major trouble and could prove to be the straw that breaks Bush's back in Iraq and ultimately hands the election to the RATS. Hopefully someone in the administration is able to talk some sense into Sistani (or buy him off) or this situation is going to blow up in our faces worse than any car bomb.

Act 3, Scene 2- Quagmire makes entrance. God help us!

[hunter112]

I think the Japanese were much more receptive to democratization than the Iraqis are or will be.

The Japanese were a society that was cut off from a lot of the Western world. They also believed they were morally superior to the rest of the world's peoples, and were entitled to do what they did.

...they were the vanquished and had no choice.

I'll grant you this, for sure. If we totally humiliated the Arabs, they might be easier to govern. But Arab governments have already humiliated most of their people. We might find them easier to work with, once we get a few more tyrannies deposed. Also consider the fact that we did not remove the Japanese emperor, whereas seeing Saddam Huisein getting probed for lice might be a sufficient amount of humiliation for the Iraqis who followed him.

...the Republicans were not a fifth column trying to undermine the Truman administration and hurry its departure from Japan.

The Rats are not going to be able to undermine us. Their opposition will only serve to bury them politically.

Establishing democracy in Iraq is much more difficult than it was in Japan.

One of the key differences is the ethnic singularity of the Japanese, versus the three ethnic groups we have to deal with in Iraq. Breaking Iraq up would make our job much easier. Certainly, the Kurds would be somewhat cooperative, possibly even the Shiites, especially after we subdue Iran, leaving only the Sunnis to have to pound down further.

[Terpfen]

Why just one vote? If that office holder dies, there is no one representing that province at all! Why do you think the US Senate has two senators for each state? That way when one senator retires or dies, the other senator become the senior senator while the new senator learns the ropes.

If the office holder dies, the governor of the province he's from appoints a replacement immediately. I don't buy into all this junior/senior senator stuff: it's not a club, it's a governing body, and the roles of that body should be very clear.

[Paleo Conservative]

I don't buy into all this junior/senior senator stuff: it's not a club, it's a governing body, and the roles of that body should be very clear.

I disagree. Theres much to be said for some degree of continuity in government. That's why the US Senate has staggered terms. I'm not sure it is possible for roles to always be clearly defined. There are always unforseen situations that don't fit into pre-existing categories.