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. . .