Democracy in Iraq?

The current situation in Iraq makes me wonder if Democracy is the right form of government for that nation.

A Democracy (Rule by the People) is the allowing of people's opinions and desires to dictate the outcome and path at which a nation-state takes concerning public policy. Generally this is achieved through elections or in the case of California, ballot initiatives. A Democracy is for the most part galvanized by public opinion, which tends to shift and mutate from day to day. Officials of the government are usually elected to their post directly from the voting public. They are also tasked with enacting laws based on the will of the people.

A Republican (Rule of Law) form of government is the representation of the people's will through elected officials chosen by the electorate. The people of a particular nation-state send respected individuals to a forum or body of government, where by these elected officials make law based on the best interest of the people. At the core of a Republican form of government is the distrust of the people's opinion to make the right decision regarding trying matters of governance. Due to the quick shift or fickleness of the people, a Republican form of government does not act in haste. Rather a Republican form of government follows a set standard of laws by which to govern a nation-state.

Now in Iraq there are two major factions: Shiite and Sunni. They are divided by their interpretation of Islam and as well geographical makeup. The divide is rooted some thirteen centuries ago following the passing of the Prophet Muhammad.

- The Sunnis believed that the successor to Muhammad should have been chosen through an electoral process.

- The Shiite believed that the successor to the Prophet Muhammad should have been selected from the Prophet's bloodline.

What held them together following the creation of Iraq (Post Ottoman Empire) was the rule of a strong-man. A secular dictator with the command and fear of his people was able to hold together their differences. Now this nation is without such a strong-man force by which to hold the nation together through fear and oppression. But what is the proper course for the Iraqis to follow?

First off, I believe that the greatest form of government is a Republic. It allows cooler heads to prevail during trying situations. I wish the United States would move past its fixation with Democracy and realize it is a Democratic-Republic (Save for another post). But for Iraq I have more questions than answers. . .

-Can Iraq come together as a Democracy with such great division?

-Would a Republic even fix the issues that Shiites and Sunnis have with one another?

-Will another strong-man leader evolve from the pack to bring the nation together?

-Is splitting the nation into several smaller nations a plausible solution?

-Are some nations meant to be ruled by one person?

Can the United States and the policies of President Bush force a nation to accept a form of government which is reliant on unity and cooperation when religious prerogatives are held so deeply that they cause division and violence?

Just because "Democracy" works in the United States and other Western civilized societies does not automatically ensure that such a form of government will work everywhere.

American Foreign Policy: Part II

Today the American Enterprise Institute unveiled its own report concerning the current situation in Iraq.

The leader behind this report is Fredrick Kagan, a well respected military historian. Co-authoring the report with Mr. Kagan is that of Retired Army General Jack Keane. Both are members and scholars with the Conservative leaning American Enterprise Institute.

***On a side note Fredrick Kagan's father Donald is the author of The Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, a nice read, though dry.

The main premise or recommendation the Kagan-Keane Report offers is an increase in troop levels in Iraq. Listening to the unveiling of the report on C-Span today, Mr. Kagan stated that between 25,000 & 30,000 more soldiers would be needed in Iraq for a period of at least 18 months.

The Kagan-Keane reports believes that if troop levels are increased for a short period of time, 6 to 9 months, the Iraqi insurgence will lay low for that period of time and then attack the nation as the American forces leave. By having a prolonged increase in troop levels would allow the military sufficient time to quell the violence and establish a proactive military infrastructure by which the Iraqi government would control. The end result is a secure Baghdad by the fall of 2007. It is widely believed that the American Enterprise Institute has the ear of President Bush and that Mr. Bush's new Iraq Policy change will include measures outlined by the Kagan-Keane Study.

- With Iraq in such a mess right now President Bush must be willing to hear all sides and all opinions regarding the future of Iraq Policy. He now has the Baker-Hamilton, Kagan-Keane, and the Defense Department reports and recommendations regarding possible future policy change. Mr. Bush must sift through each report and pull what he believes the correct path for which the United States should take, at least in the two years he has left in the White House.

This war is not going to be easily won. Some say victory is unattainable, but the idea to give up on acquired victory is wrong. Despite President Bush's best efforts to hamper progress in Iraq, the United States and its military still has a chance for victory. It will take resolve and most of all overwhelming force.

An increase in troop levels may seem counter-productive at the moment, especially since Americans do not have the heart for prolonged war, but it is the option that gives us the best chance for victory. We must be willing to use all necessary military force to bat the insurgency into submission. Using an increase of forces in Iraq would allow the military to have the added man power it needs to fight a war on all fronts. Once insurgent attacks have lessened and the Iraqi Government and military feels comfortable in its clothes the United States can leave.

- I wish the situation was different, but it is not. President Bush failed to realize the flaws of his predecessors. The next President of the United States will have to deal with Iraq and its lasting effects on the Middle East and American politics.

I believe that the key for prolonged victory with various factions in the Middle East is energy. Once the United States is able to stop using and consuming petroleum the demand will weaken in Middle Eastern nations. As demand weakens, the price falls. When the price falls for oil and the United States advances its energy resources, the crutch for which nations like Saudi Arabia-Iran-Iraq-Yemen-Kuwait will begin to crumble.

Nations in the Middle East rely on the revenue of oil to stay economically afloat. The United States must be willing to advance itself and its technology to move past the resources those Middle Eastern nations offer. Eventually without the economic revenue provided by the United States the Middle Eastern nations will slowly drain the only resource they can provide.

When bankruptcy begins to loom over those Middle Eastern nations, they will be forced to tap into a resource they previously have not used; human ingenuity.

Hopefully while money and revenue disappears from the Middle East, the United States will be riding a wave of new technology in the area of energy. New technologies can then be used as diplomatic leverage when dealing with the Middle East.

It is my desired goal that through American advancement in energy technology, the old methods by which the Middle East conducted itself (economically and socially) will fall apart. As money dries up, the people in those nations will become poorer and poorer, thus leading to revolution. Or at least admittance and understanding that what they have believed in for so long has left them technologically and socially retarded. I believe the end result should be the decay and fall of the Middle Eastern civilization. Societies unwilling to advance should always be left behind.

This desired goal cannot be achieved by solely militaristic means. It must be done through societal advancement in technology and diplomacy. It will also take years, even decades. If this is what the "War on Terror" is, Americans must realize it is going to be a long and hard fought battle.

American Foreign Policy: Part I

This will be the first post of several, though not in succession, regarding American Foreign Policy.

I was recently looking through some of my old books from college and came across William Fulbright’s “The Arrogance of Power”. I decided I would pop it open and read several chapters. I also find it interesting to read works written years, even decades ago, to get a feel for what life was like, as well as what predictions people had for the future. Anyways, I came across two passages that stuck out.

“Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations – to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image.”

I believe that with the current situation in Iraq this quote, albeit written 41 years ago, has significant meaning.

I hate to argue over the fact that this nation is at war in Iraq. I believe we must accept that and move on to how victory can be achieved. But this quote spells out the flaws by which the current administration believed heading to Iraq was right.

The Bush Administration felt that it was the duty and responsibility of the United States to take on the Hussein dictatorship in an effort to establish a free and Democratic society in the heart of the Arab Street. What the quote above offers about our current situation is that the United States, as the world’s sole military superpower, believed it was right in changing the political makeup of a nation.

The United States, and its leaders, must realize that political revolution does not come from outside the state, but rather from within the hearts and souls of those living in a particular nation. If the people lack the will or readiness to revolt against their particular leaders and governmental makeup, a foreign nation cannot force that will.

Our foreign policy must be benevolent in nature, but realistic in its means. The perceived ends may look enjoyable, but when dealing with other nations it is generally the will of the people who will dictate the outcomes regarding the formations of their government.

Thought it may be too late to right the means by which we entered Iraq, I hope future Presidents will learn from the experience of Iraq: Know who you are dealing with- Understand their history-Read their religious text-Make sure they are ready for change-And most of all never assume.

The second quote is…

“What I do fear is that she (The United States) may be drifting into commitments which, though generous and benevolent in intent, are so far-reaching as to exceed even America’s great capacities”


*I do understand what Sen. Fulbright stood for while serving in the Senate, but I find his words mentioned above telling of our time and situation.

On the death of Saddam

The execution of Saddam Hussein this week has been met with both praise and condemnation from the global community. It is my belief that it was the right move by both the Iraqi and American governments to allow such an act. By ending Mr. Hussein's life, both governments and politicians may move past that part in Iraqi history. It is important that the Iraqis and Americans look to whatever future Iraq may have, without dwelling on the bloody reign of Mr. Hussein.

Now, I must say I was not in support of the idea to go to war with Iraq. I felt at the time there were far greater and more pressing issues in foreign policy. But what has happened is not something to debate, rather to accept. Iraq is rid of one tyrant, while home to many more.
Now with Mr. Hussein buried, maybe the Iraqi government can focus on the task of clearing its nation of foreign insurgence.

This week has seen the death of the Butcher of Baghdad, as well as the three thousandth American death. There is a lot more that needs to be done. The Iraqi government MUST quell the sectarian violence, and the Bush Administration MUST recognize its failures and orchestrate a policy which will deliver some semblance of victory. There have been many ideas tossed around about how to achieve those goals, but there needs to be less talk and more action.

In March the United States will have been in Iraq for four years. Yes we rid the nation of its dictator, but we did not adequately set the nation up for success. What we are left with now is a broken nation and the possibility the United States may not come out of the situation the victor. It is imperative the nation succeeds with this war. For whatever side of the aisle you pray to, the defeat of the United States in any war is not beneficial.

Saddam Hussein's execution is a small victory, but there are still miles to go. . .

Open Letter to Senator Clinton

Senator Clinton,

I write today not as a political adversary, but rather a Democrat concerned for the well being of the party.

For sometime now, at least since your entry into the United States Senate, your name has appeared atop many opinion polls and pundit's lists regarding the 2008 Presidential race. You have been seen as a juggernaut; both in name recognition and fund raising ability. You have also been labeled a pioneer; for you have been the most accomplished woman to be touted as Presidential material in this Republic's history. But I ask you today, during the last hours of 2006, to not run for the Office of President.

I believe that there is a post far better suited for you and what your legacy ought to be defined by; Majority Leader of the United States Senate. Though the Presidency may be the most glamorous of elected offices, the Majority Leader of the Senate would allow you the opportunity to run the Legislative Branch. You would have the power to move the Senate how you saw fit, enact legislation you deemed most beneficial to the Union, and craft a legacy outside the shadow of your husband's. There have been many a Majority Leader to have far greater and longer lasting influences on the shaping of the United States, than that of Presidents.

Then there is the real chance that you may not be nominated by the Democratic National Committee for President. As we have seen in recent weeks, your poll numbers in key primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire do not reflect overwhelming support for your candidacy. I believe it is due to the high negatives you would bring to a national campaign. You would galvanize GOTV efforts for both the Democrats and Republicans; which is not what you want. To me it appears that the Republicans would welcome your candidacy more than any other current Presidential aspirant; bar Dennis Kucinich of course. There appear to be too many downsides which would come with your candidacy, but to come out and declare your intentions not to seek the Presidency would be extremely beneficial to our party.

This nation must look to the future and not the past come 2008. You Senator Clinton, I am sorry to say, are the past. If you ran the nation would be subject to punditry concerning White Water, HillaryCare, Paula Jones, Monica, and the Impeachment. You may have genuine ideas regarding the path at which to take this nation, but it is your presence in the race which will be the central issue. So I ask to you pave a path for those like John Edwards, Barak Obama, Tom Vilsack, and others (Bar Dennis Kucunich) to seek the Presidency. They will bring hope and optimism to the Presidential race, not rumor and innuendo regarding the past.

So I ask you to please take a long hard look at your chances, your legacy, and what is right for the Democratic Party when making your decision to seek the Presidency.

Sincerely,

San Soucri

The United States Senate: Part I

It is in my opinion that the greatest body of government ever conceived by man is that of the Senate.

It is also in my opinion that in this day and age the United States Senate is at an all time low; with regards to effectiveness, membership, and prestige. . .

There was once a conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington concerning the purpose of the Senate. Mr. Jefferson, in a rather Socratic manner, asked the Republic's first executive what role the Senate should play. Mr. Washington used an analogy to answer his colleagues question; stating that the Senate was much like a saucer as which to cool liquid prior to serving. This speaks volumes as to what role the Senate ought to be playing.

No longer is the Senate likened to a cooling saucer where issues are allowed to simmer in debate, but rather the Senate has begun to covet the House of Representatives. . .

The House of Representatives, formely the only branch of government directly elected by the people of the Republic. It was designed so that the citizens of the Republic would have direct influence on the matters of government and public policy. A member of the House would be elected to the body and would bring with him the concerns and issues that directly effected his consituents. With a voice in the government, under the guise of the a Representative, the people had influence over what matters were of most concern to them. If their elected Representative did not effectively advocate their needs and demands they had the opportunity to select a better person to represent them every two years.

The idea behind the formation of a lower house within the Legislative Branch of government was to allow the citizenry adequate representation in government. All issues would be discussed, debated, and voted upon in a timely fashion. The requirments for filling the office of Congressional Representative is that you are a citizen and past the age of 25 years. As mentioned above, every two years the entire body of the House of Representatives would stand for re-election. At the time of founding the House of Representatives, and to a large extent today, it was/is relatively easy to run for and win a seat in the lower house.

All a candidate must do to achieve a seat in the House of Representative is pander to the needs and fears of your consituency. This means if your district is heavily agricultural and the cost of producing cattle meat and milk is going up, while the selling price of both is going down, you must stake a claim to reverse such a trend. Currently candidates for the House use issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, and need for Higher/Lower Taxes to win a seat in the House. It is certainly not that difficult to work your base or consitutency into a frenzy over a particular issue in order to win a seat in the House. With such frequent elections mixed with low required qualifications almost any man, woman, and child could be elected to the House of Represenatives.

Now I have nothing against the system by which the framers chose the House of Representatives to follow. It is a system which allows the common citizen generalist a voice and some semblance of influence over the legislative branch. Coming out of the pre-revolutionary era, where representation was a luxury, the framers invisioned a clever system by which to give the American people a voice. What I do take issue with is the United States Senate's ever increasing move toward mirroring itself with the lower house. . .

John Edwards in 2008

Well it is official; Senator John Edwards is in the race. On Wednesday Mr. Edwards, who was in New Orleans’ lower 9th Ward, made it clear that he was going to actively pursue the nomination for President from the Democratic National Committee. Does the former Vice-Presidential candidate have what it takes to claim the top of the ticket in 2008?

Having been on the previous ticket during the last round of Presidential elections certainly helps with Mr. Edward’s efforts to gain the nomination. He is currently the only contender in the race with the experience of running a national campaign as a candidate, being a wife does not count. He will be able to tap into the system and networks that were behind John Kerry’s failed run for the White House and possible tap into the donor lists as well. He has the experience of going toe to toe with Vice-President Cheney in the debates; there is certainly no one on either side of the aisle running for President more wonkish or scary than that of Dick Cheney. He also has the benefit of being out of office for the past two years.

During his time out of political office Senator Edwards has been able to develop a reputation as a populist and champion of the lower class. Following his defeat in 2004 he was named Director of the University of North Carolina’s Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. He has also toured the nation touting reforms aimed at lifting the economic and social burdens placed on this country’s working-poor and middle class. Using his time out of office he has been able to formulate opinions regarding a wide range of issues without the weight of Washington politicos bearing down upon him. He will use his stances on poverty, healthcare, and the environment as a way to appeal to the middle of America leading into the 2008 primary season.

Currently Mr. Edwards runs side by side with Senator Barak Obama in several primary state straw polls, which includes being ahead of presumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton. This does not surprise me in the least bit. Senator Edwards has a very warm and folksy demeanor which allowed him to place well in the Iowa and South Carolina primaries in 04’. He is in sharp contrast to that of Senator Clinton who tends to come off with an air of arrogance, as well as one who draws extremely high negatives both within her party and from outside. If you are likeable and non-threatening there is a great chance more will support you, or even better not vote against you.

The one issue that might arise is his experience. Having served only 1 term in the United States Senate, he may be confronted with the claim that he has not paid his dues, as well as lacks the needed experience in office to effectively execute the duties of President. If he has done his homework in the last 2 years he can avoid that pitfall by appearing well read and well informed on some of the major issues facing the nation both home and abroad. He will need to surround himself with hardened policy analysts who can steer him in the right direction and keep him from making Kerryian gaffes.

If he can stay under the radar and away from the bright lights which will be cast down upon Senators Obama and Clinton, Mr. Edwards may have the best shot to receive the party’s endorsement for President. Furthermore I believe that an Edwards-Obama ticket would be a very formidable pairing. Both men are well educated, youthful, hopeful, optimistic, as well as oozing with charisma. It would be a nice contrast to the doom & gloom era of politics we are currently in. I believe right now, a little under two years away from the election, that John Edwards has the best shot at securing the top slot for the Democrats. There is the 800 pound gorilla that is Al Gore, but I don't believe that he will enter the race; though it he does decide to do so he will get the nomination hands down.

Edwards 08'