Constitution Watch: The birth of "democracy" in Iraq

[Teta040]

As everybody knows, the folks in Iraq who are trying to hammer out a Constitution are having some.....,er, problems. Seems like little things such as the Kurds, women's "rights" and the issue of whether to have a semi-autonomous Shiite territory in the South (which could one day secede?) keep popping up. Not to mention that great-unwritten about issue: just what their relationship to their permanent military occupier, the United States, is. They've requested and gotten a week's delay in the deadline. This is a very important moment for both Iraq and the US, for many reasons.

I am very keen to see just how an American-style democracy can be successfully implimented under the barrel of a gun, and under a strict, swift timetable. (It always amazes me that both the soldiers standing guard in the Red Zone in Baghdad, and our so-called "leaders" in Washington, do not remember the basic fact that our own Revolution was NOT carried out in this manner.) And, of course, the knowledge that you never truly have the real power...you can't vote that big miltary base on the Euphrates to be dismantled and ALL US troops go home, for example. You can be sure that the day this benighted document hits the air, if there's a text of it online, you can darn well bet I'm going to download and copy the sucker. And there'd better be a text online! (anybody who can post a link to it as soon as it's up, could you please do so.) This is a thread where you can share your thoughts on this august document, its implications for the various groups in Iraq, difficulties or lack of them in implimenting its laws, US "sincerity", and thoughts on whether there can ever be "democracy" in the Middle East in general. Not to mention what I think our intentions in the region truly are (and IMO, they are NOT "democratic.")


The American Revolution was not about 1776, when we declared independence from Britain. No, we should be celebrating 1783, when the Founding Fathers first presented the feuding, warring factions of the 13 Colonies, (briefly united during only because the Brits were such utter bastards) with 2 documents that attempted to forge them into a nation. It was an intensely long, difficult and complex process, and some of the issues went unresolved, and were the seeds for our own Civil War some 80 yrs later. How many of you know that after the Revolution, most of the country didn't want to be a single country at all, but just wanted to go back to being like they were before? They just wanted to be free from England, having a single Federal Government was the last thing on thier minds. How on God's earth did the Fathers ever convince them to unite???Some of the issues that came up in 1783 we STILL fight about..how much pwer the Federal GOvt shoukd have and how much the States, for example. ) Nobody was really happy, in those first yrs. At times, it got extremely messy, and most of the Fathers by the late 1790's were bitter and doubted the whole thing would work. But it did. Why? I'm reading a lot about the Revolution right now and learning so much. And for those of you who believe that George W Bush really DOES want Iraq to be independent and free, with total control over her own destiny, even by these standards, Iraq is in trouble.

So this discussion can go various ways. We can debate whether the Iraqi Constition can work. Or what Bush's real designs are, by the dubious process by which they are being pressured to produce a document by a deadline of mere weeks (unlike the American Revolution, in which the Fathers not only of course worked with no deadline, but took the opposite tack: letting the people respond to the Consitution and hash it all out, and responing by making alterations where they felt they were needed to address people's concerns, and coming up with the Bill Of Rights for people concerned about the ruling class having too much power. IMO, the BOR is even more imprtant than the Constitution..freedom of religion, assembly, speech, free press, etc. But we also have to remember that the Fathers didn't dreamit up in the first place, it came after public comment. Remember, kiddies: the Constitution came first, and the Bill of Roghts second, and only after long months of public debate. That is very interesting. ) We can discuss whether this is even a "democratic" enterprise or a dubious excercise in colonialism, disguised as "democracy." We can discuss the history of the various groups. Or what country this is supposed to look like. Or how her enighbors are watching all this go down, and our allies too. And the nature of gov't.

And of course, this is the place to monitor the media's reaction, American and international, about this. .

Enough of my long-winded rant....let the fun and games begin....
(strikes up "Fanfare For The Common Man").

For starters: On the subject of democratic revolutions. Anybody got recommendations on reading material? For America: Let me begin with David McCullough's new book, "1776", the Peabody-winning PBS Documentary "Liberty!" and another one I'm readng right now..forgot the title....it has a yellow cover....it's about factions in the Colonies... the back with this in a minute.

P.S... Dangit, I can't find it. I'll have the title tomorrow, when I'm back here. Oh, and one other thing: we in the US (as usual) don't care about foriegn reaction to out affairs, or foreign involevement in our wars. If it wasn't for the French, there wouldn't be an America....I'd love to have the non-U.S. posters share foreign reaction too.

 

[BVS]

You mean they are having problems...didn't see this coming.

 

[Dreadsox]

The American Revolution was not about 1776, when we declared independence from Britain. No, we should be celebrating 1783, when the Founding Fathers first presented the feuding, warring factions of the 13 Colonies, (briefly united during only because the Brits were such utter bastards) with 2 documents that attempted to forge them into a nation. It was an intensely long, difficult and complex process, and some of the issues went unresolved, and were the seeds for our own Civil War some 80 yrs later. How many of you know that after the Revolution, most of the country didn't want to be a single country at all, but just wanted to go back to being like they were before? They just wanted to be free from England, having a single Federal Government was the last thing on thier minds. How on God's earth did the Fathers ever convince them to unite???Some of the issues that came up in 1783 we STILL fight about..how much pwer the Federal GOvt shoukd have and how much the States, for example. ) Nobody was really happy, in those first yrs. At times, it got extremely messy, and most of the Fathers by the late 1790's were bitter and doubted the whole thing would work. But it did. Why? I'm reading a lot about the Revolution right now and learning so much. And for those of you who believe that George W Bush really DOES want Iraq to be independent and free, with total control over her own destiny, even by these standards, Iraq is in trouble.

So this discussion can go various ways. We can debate whether the Iraqi Constition can work. Or what Bush's real designs are, by the dubious process by which they are being pressured to produce a document by a deadline of mere weeks (unlike the American Revolution, in which the Fathers not only of course worked with no deadline, but took the opposite tack: letting the people respond to the Consitution and hash it all out, and responing by making alterations where they felt they were needed to address people's concerns, and coming up with the Bill Of Rights for people concerned about the ruling class having too much power. IMO, the BOR is even more imprtant than the Constitution..freedom of religion, assembly, speech, free press, etc. But we also have to remember that the Fathers didn't dreamit up in the first place, it came after public comment. Remember, kiddies: the Constitution came first, and the Bill of Roghts second, and only after long months of public debate. That is very interesting. ) We can discuss whether this is even a "democratic" enterprise or a dubious excercise in colonialism, disguised as "democracy." We can discuss the history of the various groups. Or what country this is supposed to look like. Or how her enighbors are watching all this go down, and our allies too. And the nature of gov't.

And of course, this is the place to monitor the media's reaction, American and international, about this. .

Enough of my long-winded rant....let the fun and games begin....
(strikes up "Fanfare For The Common Man").

For starters: On the subject of democratic revolutions. Anybody got recommendations on reading material? For America: Let me begin with David McCullough's new book, "1776", the Peabody-winning PBS Documentary "Liberty!" and another one I'm readng right now..forgot the title....it has a yellow cover....it's about factions in the Colonies... the back with this in a minute.

P.S... Dangit, I can't find it. I'll have the title tomorrow, when I'm back here. Oh, and one other thing: we in the US (as usual) don't care about foriegn reaction to out affairs, or foreign involevement in our wars. If it wasn't for the French, there wouldn't be an America....I'd love to have the non-U.S. posters share foreign reaction too.

Excellent thought provoking questions....

I would say we also need to remember that there was the Confederation of states before the Constitution. That failed because the governement had so little power. I would look up resources on Shay's Rebellion which has a little bit to do with the move towards a constitution.

The Federalist papers.....may be of interest as well.

1776 is an excellent book.
Adams is an excellent book.

 

[Teta040]

Do you mean that book on Adams that was written last yr, that won the Pulitzer...maybe I'm wrong, was that on Adams?

Thanks, Dreadsox. When I saw your name I thought you'd flame me like no tomorrow, esp after my "dubious intentions" part of that post.... We seem to support breastfeeding in public but are political opposites on everything else!

Of course, everyone should start by going to their local Barnes and Noble and reading the origional things themselves. Declaration, BOR, Federalist Papers, etc.

But the guy I'm most fascinated with, truth be told, is Thomas Paine. The "philosopher" behind the whole thing. (You know, "Common Sense" ..these are the times that try mens' souls..." "The harder the confict, the more glorious the triumph." etc). This guy was just a loose cannon and wreaked political havoc wherever he went, post-1780. He didn't know what to do with himself. I'm just fascinated that after all he did to inspire the Patriots (that first paragraph of "Common Sense" just makes me weep--yeah, get in line, I know. Revolutions today are so boring. No great stirring speeches or philosopshical writings. No stirring songs or marches written on the spot for the troops to sing. Hell, politicians don't even study oratory anymore..they don't even know how to F*#$G speak in public anymore!) he eventually turned against them for betraying the Revolutionary ideal (as he saw it) and had the guts to openly attack Washington. And after invoking God so eloquently, he eventually became an athiest!!

I really do have to go now....I'll be back tomorrow evening. In the meantime, here is ANOTHER major headache for the "common man" in Iraq...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093747,00.html


And you guys should know I have an Irish last name. That explains my long-windedness, I think: I'll try to clean up my writing too. When I'm very tired I tend to use a lot of ().

 

[Teta040]

PS Bonovox Superstar, were you being serious or tongue-in-cheek?

Yeah, they're having problems. That has to be the understatement of the year. God, imagine if you were one of them...aside from the political difficulties, imagine that your life might not be worth 2 cents.after next Monday......whatever their currency is.

Here's a minor sign of trouble: "according to a poll, 69% or Iraqis believe in women's rights..but 'within the stuctures of Islam' ."

This is the reasoning the currently ruling al-Saud branch of the Royal Family (as opposed to the more liberal al-Faisal branch, which was ousted form power when King Fasal was assassinated in 1975) uses to support its support of Sharia, and the prowling Saudi religious police, which keeps women as virtual slaves.

Leaving Bush and his intentions aside, I'm really interested to see how this works out, and it don't look good, folks....

*goes to put "Lawrence of Arabia" into the DVD player..specifically, the last third of the film, the Damascus part....* Did you know Alec Guiness's character, Faisal, was the first King of Iraq? That was what he meant when at the end of the film when he said, "I must be a king."

OK, I really DO have to go!! Adios until tomorrow....

 

[Dreadsox]

Paine was quite an interesting fellow.

Many of the founding fathers, did not seem to agree with him much later on, yet he inspired them early on.

Adams in particular called him something nasty...

Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"”; 7 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 8 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 9

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 10 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 11 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 12 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 13

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks, Deadsox. When I saw your name I thought you'd flame me like no tomorrow, esp after my "dubious intentions" part of that post.... We seem to support breastfeeding in public but are political opposites on everything else!

I am more conservative on national security issues....more liberal on social,...

and I LOVE HISTORY~!

I get the joy of looking at Plymouth Harbor every day, driving yup the street that ran through the center of Plymouth Plantation, looking at Burial Hill where Pilgrims, Redcoats, and Patriots are burried. I drive by Massasoits camp.....

I think about history daily.

I went to college next to John Adams house, and drove by the Adams Mansion, Hancock's house, and the burial place of the two Presidents....

LOL....surrounded by it.

I live up the street from Deborah Samson's house.... Hehe.... Woman who disguised herself as a man, and joined the army to fight the revolution.

I dine monthly in a restaraunt that used to make cannon balls, and the iron for old ironsides was made there...it was a high priority target for the British that never got hit.


hmmmmm.....

I live one town over from wgere the royal governor came for his summer vacations before the war.....

 

[BVS]

PS Bonovox Superstar, were you being serious or tongue-in-cheek?

I think all of those that thought they'd make the deadline or that thought this was just going to work so smoothly, as so many expressed including some in here were either brainwashed, naive, or kidding themselves. Anyone could have seen this coming from a 1000 miles away.

 

[Dreadsox]

it did not work the 1st time for the US......

I would argue, that with the Ammendments Added, that we still had not got it right...

 

[BVS]

it did not work the 1st time for the US......

I would argue, that with the Ammendments Added, that we still had not got it right...

I completely agree. But circumstances were different. They have a democracy that's occupying them and freeing them as we speak, we didn't have a "mentor" looking over our shoulder holding our hand. Many thought it would be so easy because we were holding their hand.

I think many thought we were taking a factory approved used car off the lot, it would take a little getting use to, a little breaking in but a smooth reliable ride. Reality is we were sold a complete lemon and we may never getting running right.

 

[verte76]

They are indeed having difficulties. Additionally, the Turks are nervous about autonomy because they don't want an autonomous Kurdistan on their borders. This could do crazy things with our relationship with Turkey. There are all sorts of little messes being created. The whole thing is pretty messy.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

we didn't have a "mentor" looking over our shoulder holding our hand. Many thought it would be so easy because we were holding their hand.

Exactly. That's the thing that's bothered me for a while with this whole Iraq thing. If they want a democracy, great! All for that. But I'd want to be sure it's what they want, and not what we want them to have. I mean, the way things have been sounding, it seems like we just assumed they wanted a democracy and are "mentoring" them through the process-and we didn't even get their input on what government they wanted. And I think they and they alone should fully work on building up their government-if they ask for our help, we can help them, but until then, let's not hold their hands. They're intelligent people, I would imagine they can figure this out on their own.

Angela

 

[Teta040]

I'd have to say I agree more with Moonlit Angel..for this and many other reasons, count me in with the soldly anti-Bush, anti-war camp. But any discussion of the home front (anything to do with politics at home, protest, US casualties etc) are for other established threads. This, I'm hoping, will stick more with what is happening in Iraq proper.

Dreadsox, I didn't know you were a Revolution scholar! So now, we can go to you for answers! I don't have to read anymore. I have a friend who lives in Plymouth, and one day she took me to Plymouth Rock. It didn't impress me, really. Too touristy. The old section of Boston, while also touristy, impressed me more.

I live in Albany, NY, which is just as old as Boston, has just as much of a history, and also has some of the last surviving American pre-19th century architecture around. Albany is small, but the downtown area and the Dutch area north of the city is just as it was in the beginning. I esp got a kick out of seeing Freeman's Farm some yrs back. I was a history minor in college, interested in the Ottoman Empire (due to my family history), the 1600's Quebec French era, and the 30 yrs between 1845-1875. Also, the French Revolution (which I think the Iraqi one is going to end up looking more like in about 5 yrs time.) But my interest in the Revolution--which I did not know at the time that Albany and the areas north of had played apart in-- began 5 yrs ago when I took a daylong cruise up Lake George (or, as I call it by the Iroquios name, "Atianterocte") and passed by the sheer enscarpment on the mountain where Fort Ticonderoga is. Well, after hearing about that battle, and General forgot his name, begins with a B, his march through the forest to the mouth of the Hudson...I was hooked...the guide told us the inaccurate legend about the colonial soldier who supposedly slid down that entire sheer cliff to escape the pursuing Redcoats....all legend of course!

I wasn't going to be on here again, didn't think I'd have a free minute..but have to go. I'll dig around my closet and see what I can come up with as far as the parties are concerned. I love ME politics. This must be the product of a diseased mind, I know

Back tomorrow....

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox, I didn't know you were a Revolution scholar! So now, we can go to you for answers! I don't have to read anymore. I have a friend who lives in Plymouth, and one day she took me to Plymouth Rock. It didn't impress me, really. Too touristy. The old section of Boston, while also touristy, impressed me more.

I live in Albany, NY, which is just as old as Boston, has just as much of a history, and also has some of the last surviving American pre-19th century architecture around. Albany is small, but the downtown area and the Dutch area north of the city is just as it was in the beginning. I esp got a kick out of seeing Freeman's Farm some yrs back. I was a history minor in college, interested in the Ottoman Empire (due to my family history), the 1600's Quebec French era, and the 30 yrs between 1845-1875. Also, the French Revolution (which I think the Iraqi one is going to end up looking more like in about 5 yrs time.) But my interest in the Revolution--which I did not know at the time that Albany and the areas north of had played apart in-- began 5 yrs ago when I took a daylong cruise up Lake George (or, as I call it by the Iroquios name, "Atianterocte") and passed by the sheer enscarpment on the mountain where Fort Ticonderoga is. Well, after hearing about that battle, and General forgot his name, begins with a B, his march through the forest to the mouth of the Hudson...I was hooked...the guide told us the inaccurate legend about the colonial soldier who supposedly slid down that entire sheer cliff to escape the pursuing Redcoats....all legend of course!

I wasn't going to be on here again, didn't think I'd have a free minute..but have to go. I'll dig around my closet and see what I can come up with as far as the parties are concerned. I love ME politics. This must be the product of a diseased mind, I know

Back tomorrow....

General Burgoine maybe?

Plymouth Rock....makes the town a LOT of money!

 

[VertigoGal]

Exactly. That's the thing that's bothered me for a while with this whole Iraq thing. If they want a democracy, great! All for that. But I'd want to be sure it's what they want, and not what we want them to have. I mean, the way things have been sounding, it seems like we just assumed they wanted a democracy and are "mentoring" them through the process-and we didn't even get their input on what government they wanted. And I think they and they alone should fully work on building up their government-if they ask for our help, we can help them, but until then, let's not hold their hands. They're intelligent people, I would imagine they can figure this out on their own.

Angela

I agree about the hand-holding thing I suppose, but I think the sheer number of people who turned out to vote suggests they do *want* a democracy. I think most people in this world would like to live in a democracy. Assuming they would like to be ruled and oppressed like sheep is really a greater insult to their intelligence than "hand-holding."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Exactly. That's the thing that's bothered me for a while with this whole Iraq thing. If they want a democracy, great! All for that. But I'd want to be sure it's what they want, and not what we want them to have. I mean, the way things have been sounding, it seems like we just assumed they wanted a democracy and are "mentoring" them through the process-and we didn't even get their input on what government they wanted. And I think they and they alone should fully work on building up their government-if they ask for our help, we can help them, but until then, let's not hold their hands. They're intelligent people, I would imagine they can figure this out on their own.

Angela

American style democracy ~ I think not. Right now it is the Iraqi's writing the constitution, they are the ones going out and voting (not at the barrell of a gun but by their own volition) ~ issues like Islam are at play, there has not been imposition of American values, if there was then there wouldn't be the current dilemma of having mandated Sharia law.

 

[VertigoGal]

They are indeed having difficulties. Additionally, the Turks are nervous about autonomy because they don't want an autonomous Kurdistan on their borders. This could do crazy things with our relationship with Turkey. There are all sorts of little messes being created. The whole thing is pretty messy.

Mess o' Potamia

 

[BVS]

American style democracy ~ I think not. Right now it is the Iraqi's writing the constitution, they are the ones going out and voting (not at the barrell of a gun but by their own volition) ~ issues like Islam are at play, there has not been imposition of American values, if there was then there wouldn't be the current dilemma of having mandated Sharia law.

You believe the US(and coalition) are absolutely playing no part? Please.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sure we don't need to describe this in the extremes.

A reading of the drafts give clues as to what concepts were included from a Western (US) style of government.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree about the hand-holding thing I suppose, but I think the sheer number of people who turned out to vote suggests they do *want* a democracy. I think most people in this world would like to live in a democracy. Assuming they would like to be ruled and oppressed like sheep is really a greater insult to their intelligence than "hand-holding."

There's other government options besides a democracy or a dictatorship, though. They could've chosen from one of those, too, is what I'm saying. I would imagine they don't want a dictatorship, that seemed pretty clear from their rejoicing when Saddam was overthrown.

Again, if they do want a democracy, that's fine. It just seemed that America just assumed they wanted a democracy and didn't even let them consider any other forms of government aside from a dictatorship. And like BVS said, from what I've heard, I'd understood that America is playing a part in this setup. And from what I've read in history class, anytime one country takes any part in trying to set up a government for another, generally, bad things start to happen. I'd just like to avoid that ahead of time and let the Iraqis take care of setting up their government themselves.

Angela

 

[STING2]

There's other government options besides a democracy or a dictatorship, though. They could've chosen from one of those, too, is what I'm saying. I would imagine they don't want a dictatorship, that seemed pretty clear from their rejoicing when Saddam was overthrown.

Again, if they do want a democracy, that's fine. It just seemed that America just assumed they wanted a democracy and didn't even let them consider any other forms of government aside from a dictatorship. And like BVS said, from what I've heard, I'd understood that America is playing a part in this setup. And from what I've read in history class, anytime one country takes any part in trying to set up a government for another, generally, bad things start to happen. I'd just like to avoid that ahead of time and let the Iraqis take care of setting up their government themselves.

Angela

So what bad things have happened from the United States set up or development of the German and Japanese governments after World War II?

 

[Teta040]

Yes, Deadsox, it was Burgoyne..... And I didn't mean that as a dis to Plymouth Rock! I KNOW it makes a lot of money....BUT....considering what happened there, I was more generally thinking about the way we clean up and sterilize places here a lot of messy historical things happened,we sanitize them, and they lose their mystique. Like the way many people have commented on the way Gettysburg has been turned into a sort of historical theme park, it's the most "touristy" of the Civil War battlefields, when I think it's the one that should have been left to look like Max Yasgur's farm, pre-Woodstock...you see the rolling green fields and the Round Tops, etc, and think, "yeah, that's fine", but then you tour the site and see all the other commercial crap that's been thrown in. When you live in a place like Albany and can still have a glass of wine in a place like Pauly's Hotel, built circa 1796, and sit in the room and see how the fireplace has been redone and modernized, or walk down streets where the potholes reveal worn down cobblestones, or pass by a lawyer's office located in a building where the upper story still has faded white paint saying "Liquor, Feed, Hay and Straw." in faded but clearly recognizable 19th century script, these buildings may not be tourist attractions but somehow, for all their benign neglect, they evoke and make real the past in a way the most polished up major historical site does not. They're untouched, and put you closer to the Beginning. Sorry if this sounds spoiled..but if you ever came to Albany, you'd see what I mean.

As for democracy....STING 2, I suppose these arguments can come later, after we see the draft of the Constitution. I still think this line of talk can be saved for next week, or the Impeachment Tour thread; I'll reply there. No offense, but I was really hoping to do was pursue the historical aspect of the Democracy question.

As Dreadsox is the self-awoved expert on the American Revolution, and me on the French Revolution and Middle East politics, let's begin this little adventure by getting in the mood. We need some visual stimulation. I'm going to recommend this to people in the other thread too.

So, I'm assigning everyone some homework I was going to start this discussion by assuming a lot of people were going to pop up in here who were not sufficiently familar with all the seperate factions hashing it out in Iraq. I can't claim to know everything..hey, I wish I could but I've read far more on Middle East Politics than is really healty for me. Some of it is personal....if wasn't for the Turkish response to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and France's response to Turkey's response, I wouldn't be sitting here typing this. I'd probably be hauling cabbages up a mountain side in central Turkey, speaking Turkish and bowing to Mecca 5 times a day...I won't elaborate, Armenian hisotry is too depressing for y'all. (My dad's side is Irish, and I look like my dad, but I was riased with Mom's family.)

But last night, after I joked that I was going to pop "Lawrence of Arabia" into my DVD player, I actually did it. I am a film buff and have a big DVD collection. Hadn't seen it in a LONG time. MY GOD. The film is a visual sermon right out of today's headlines. The conversations between characters, the clandestine glances, the things spoken and unsiad, the attitudes of the Brit commanders in Cairo....the links between politicians and the miltary....I saw this when I was a kid, cried flood buckets over the "Nothing is written" scene, and went out and reads both the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", Lawrence's Tolkien-like missive AND the Koran as a result. How astonished to find out just how closely film follows book, and how very little is made up or tinkered with, in Hollywood fashion. Of course, Lawrence was a controversial figure and his attitudes smack of British colonial attitudes, sometimes, but sometimes he's on the mark.

If you have an old VHS copy lying around the house, DON"T watch that, it has to be the restored version on the DVD, with all the crucial deleted scenes..... The metaphor of a gun, Lawrence's pistol, that passes from hand to hand thougout the film, meaning different things....""You're going to have a democracy in this country? You're going to have a Parliament?!?!" " I will tell you that when I HAVE a country." "Spoken like a true politican . YOu learn fast..too fast." ......... "Mr Lawrence, what do you think these people hope to gain from all this?" "They hope to gain their freedom." "'They hope to gain their freedom. Ha. There's one born every minute."

THE crucial starting point to this thread..then we can introduce people to the warring factions..then, when the Constitution hits next week, we can begin the right and wrong.

I was going to start on this tonight, but this movie has thrown me for a loop. I'd forgotten most of it. David Lean was,indeed, the quintessinal genius.

Nightly night, kiddies, and on Monday, there'll be a quiz!

PS. If anyone wants to go the whole hog and read the Koran (those of you who haven't), be prepared to start and stop several times. For a Christian, used to the historically chronological Bible, it's anightmare, and the Suras kind of repeat themselves....

 

[VertigoGal]

There's other government options besides a democracy or a dictatorship, though. They could've chosen from one of those, too, is what I'm saying. I would imagine they don't want a dictatorship, that seemed pretty clear from their rejoicing when Saddam was overthrown.

Again, if they do want a democracy, that's fine. It just seemed that America just assumed they wanted a democracy and didn't even let them consider any other forms of government aside from a dictatorship. And like BVS said, from what I've heard, I'd understood that America is playing a part in this setup. And from what I've read in history class, anytime one country takes any part in trying to set up a government for another, generally, bad things start to happen. I'd just like to avoid that ahead of time and let the Iraqis take care of setting up their government themselves.

Angela

Of course there are other types of government than a dictatorship or a true democracy...The countries in the so-called free world are not true democracies. However, I think it's fair to say that there is a difference between a government where citizens have a say in the political process, and one where they don't. And I think it's pretty clear that Iraqis would prefer the former. Never did I say anything about American style-democracy, or that the Iraqis would prefer it. The impression I'm getting is that the Constitution is largely being written by Iraqis, although I'm sure there are American interests involved to some extent. But if it were the case that the Americans were basically writing it for them, do you think the role of Islam in government would even be an issue?

 

[BonosSaint]

Maybe the Americans are just practicing the drafting of a theocratic constitution. (only kidding--sort of. )

 

[VertigoGal]

good one.

 

[Teta040]

HOLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guts, since I am not a hacker, I must ask a REALLY stupid question.....how do you cut and paste article from another website into this thread? I could simply give the links but I want EVERYONE to be sure they're read these. One is an article which already has the makings of a classic, by Henry the K himself, *basso voice* Henry Kissinger, from the New York Times 2 days ago....the other is an article from a site called Slate.com which (HOLY CRAP) seems to be word for word the concerns of my first post in this trhead. It's almost like he read my post!! He compares Iraq with America in 1787.....

Here are the the 2 links but could you guys PLEASE print these out too?

KIssinger's "Lessons For An Exit Strategy".

 

[Teta040]

Problems with links....let's try this again....

For Kissinger: "Lessons For An Exit Strategy"
http://washingtonpost.com/wp_dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101756html

For Slate: "Baghdad 2005 vs Philadelphia 1789"

www.Slate.com/id/2124691?nav=wp

 

[Teta040]

Arrghhh! The Washingtom Post one doesn't work..I advise everyone to register at the WP..(it's quick and free, you don't have to fill in a lot of boxes) and you'll find it under "Most emailed articles"

Fri-Sun is a bad time for me to post..I'll be back On MOnday, and then we can really get talking...Dreadsox, you'll find the Slate article SCARY....this is EXACTLY what I am trying to bring up in this thread....

 

[yolland]

A_Wanderer posted this in War a week ago, but here it is again.

Lessons for an Exit Strategy
By Henry A. Kissinger
Friday, August 12, 2005
washingtonpost.com


There have been conflicting reports about the timing of American troop withdrawals from Iraq. Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces there, has announced that the United States intends to begin a "fairly substantial" withdrawal of U.S. forces after the projected December elections establish a constitutional government. Other sources have indicated that this will involve 30,000 troops, or some 22 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some high-level statements from Baghdad have indicated that the beginning of withdrawals may be delayed until next summer. On either schedule, progress is dependent upon improvements in the security situation and in the training of Iraqi forces.

A review of withdrawal strategy therefore seems in order. For one thing, how are the terms "progress" and "improvement" to be defined? In a war without front lines, does a lull indicate success or a strategic decision by the adversary? Is a decline in enemy attacks due to attrition or to a deliberate enemy strategy of conserving forces to encourage American withdrawal? Or are we in a phase similar to the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968, which at the time was widely perceived as an American setback but is now understood as a major defeat for Hanoi?

For someone like me, who observed firsthand the anguish of the original involvement in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and who later participated in the decisions to withdraw during the Nixon administration, Casey's announcement revived poignant memories. For a decision to withdraw substantial U.S. forces while the war continues is a potentially fateful event. It affects the calculations of insurgents and government forces alike, so that the definition of progress becomes nearly as much a psychological as a military judgment. Every soldier withdrawn represents a larger percentage of the remaining total. The capacity for offensive action of the remaining forces shrinks. Once the process is started, it runs the risk of operating by momentum rather than by strategic analysis, and that process is increasingly difficult to reverse.

Despite such handicaps, the decision to replace U.S. forces with local armies during the Vietnam War -- labeled "Vietnamization" -- was, from the security viewpoint, successful on the whole. Between 1969 and the end of 1972, more than 500,000 U.S. troops were withdrawn. American involvement in ground combat ended in early 1971. U.S. casualties were reduced from an average of 400 a week in 1968 and early 1969 to an average of 20 a week in 1972.

These measures were possible because, after the failure of Hanoi's Tet Offensive, the guerrilla threat was substantially eliminated. Saigon and all other urban centers were far safer than major cities in Iraq are today. Saigon controlled perhaps 80 percent of the country with relatively well-established front lines. Vietnamese army units were increasingly able to repel offensives from the regular forces of Hanoi.

When the Vietnamese army, with substantial U.S. air support, broke the back of the North Vietnamese all-out offensive in 1972, Vietnamization could be judged a success. Shortly afterward the North Vietnamese accepted terms that they had rejected for four years. (That they did, however, does not settle the debate over whether a different withdrawal rate -- slower, faster or none at all until after a settlement -- could have speeded that day.) Three years later, these results were reversed, not because of internal violence but because of an external attack by Hanoi's conventional military force, in violation of every provision of the Paris agreement.

America's emotional exhaustion with the war and the domestic travail of Watergate had reduced economic and military aid to Vietnam by two-thirds, and Congress prohibited military support, even via airpower, to the besieged ally. None of the countries that had served as guarantors of the agreement was prepared to lift a diplomatic finger.

All this demonstrated two principles applicable to Iraq: Military success is difficult to sustain unless buttressed by domestic support. And an international framework within which the new Iraq can find its place needs to be fostered.

History, of course, never repeats itself precisely. Vietnam was a battle of the Cold War; Iraq is an episode in the struggle against radical Islam. The stake in the Cold War was perceived to be the political survival of independent nation-states allied with the United States around the Soviet periphery. The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, cultures and religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled.

This is why many opponents of the decision to start the war agree with the proposition that a catastrophic outcome would have grave global consequences -- a fundamental difference from the Vietnam debate. On the other hand, the military challenge in Iraq is more elusive. Local Iraqi forces are being trained for a form of combat entirely different from the traditional land battles of the last phase of the Vietnam War. There are no front lines; the battlefield is everywhere. We face a shadowy enemy pursuing four principal objectives: (1) to expel foreigners from Iraq; (2) to penalize Iraqis cooperating with the occupation; (3) to create a chaos out of which a government of their Islamist persuasion will emerge as a model for other Islamic states; and (4) to turn Iraq into a training base for the next round of fighting, probably in moderate Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

North Vietnamese forces possessed heavy weapons, had sanctuaries in adjoining countries and numbered at least a half-million trained troops. Iraqi insurgents number in the tens of thousands and are lightly armed. Their most effective weapon is a homemade explosive, their most effective delivery system the suicide bomber and their most frequent targets unarmed civilians.

The Iraqi population has shown extraordinary equanimity in the face of this deliberate and systematic slaughter. In the end, its perception will determine the outcome as much as the military situation does. It will know how secure it is; it will determine the sacrifices it is prepared to make.

In essence, the Iraq war is a contest over which side's assessment turns out to be correct. The insurgents are betting that by exacting a toll among supporters of the government and collaborators with America, they can frighten an increasing number of civilians into, at a minimum, staying on the sidelines, thereby undermining the government and helping the insurgents by default. The Iraqi government and the United States are counting on a different kind of attrition: that possibly the insurgents' concentration on civilian carnage is due to the relatively small number of insurgents, which obliges them to conserve manpower and to shrink from attacking hard targets; hence, the insurgency can gradually be worn down.

Because of the axiom that guerrillas win if they do not lose, stalemate is unacceptable. American strategy, including a withdrawal process, will stand or fall not on whether it maintains the existing security situation but on whether the capacity to improve it is enhanced. Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.

The quality of intelligence will be crucial. Specifically, these issues require attention: How do we assess the fighting capacity of the insurgents and their strategy? To what level must attacks on civilians be reduced, and over what period, before a province can be described as pacified? What is the real combat effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, and against what kind of dangers? To what extent are the Iraqi forces penetrated by insurgents? How will Iraqi forces react to insurgent blackmail -- for example, if a general's son is kidnapped? What is the role of infiltration from neighboring countries? How can it be defeated?

Experience in Vietnam suggests that the effectiveness of local forces is profoundly affected by the political framework. South Vietnam had about 11 divisions, two in each of the four corps areas and three others constituting a reserve. In practice, only the reserve forces could be used throughout the country. The divisions defending the provinces in which they were stationed and from which they were recruited were often quite effective. They helped defeat the North Vietnamese offensive in 1972. When moved into a different and unfamiliar corps area, however, they proved far less steady. This was one of the reasons for the disasters of 1975.

The Iraqi equivalent may well be the ethnic and religious antagonisms between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In Vietnam, the effectiveness of forces depended on geographic ties, but the provinces did not perceive themselves in conflict with each other. In Iraq, each of the various ethnic and religious groupings sees itself in an irreconcilable, perhaps mortal, confrontation with the others. Each group has what amounts to its own geographically concentrated militia. In the Kurdish area, for example, internal security is maintained by Kurdish forces, and the presence of the national army is kept to a minimum, if not totally prevented. The same holds true to a substantial extent in the Shiite region.

Is it then possible to speak of a national army at all? Today the Iraqi forces are in their majority composed of Shiites, and the insurrection is mostly in traditional Sunni areas. It thus foreshadows a return to the traditional Sunni-Shiite conflict, only with reversed capabilities. These forces may cooperate in quelling the Sunni insurrection. But will they, even when adequately trained, be willing to quell Shiite militias in the name of the nation? Do they obey the ayatollahs, especially Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, or the national government in Baghdad?

And if these two entities are functionally the same, can the national army make its writ run in non-Shiite areas except as an instrument of repression? And is it then still possible to maintain a democratic state?

The ultimate test of progress will therefore be the extent to which the Iraqi armed forces reflect -- at least to some degree -- the ethnic diversity of the country and are accepted by the population at large as an expression of the nation. Drawing Sunni leaders into the political process is an important part of an anti-insurgent strategy. Failing that, the process of building security forces may become the prelude to a civil war.

Can a genuine nation emerge in Iraq through constitutional means?

The answer to that question will determine whether Iraq becomes a signpost for a reformed Middle East or the pit of an ever-spreading conflict. For these reasons, a withdrawal schedule should be accompanied by some political initiative inviting an international framework for Iraq's future. Some of our allies may prefer to act as bystanders, but reality will not permit this for their own safety. Their cooperation is needed, not so much for the military as for the political task, which will test, above all, the West's statesmanship in shaping a global system relevant to its necessities.

The writer, a former secretary of state, is chairman of Kissinger Associates.

 

[Teta040]

Thnaks Yolland..Could you do me a HUGE favor and post the Slate article? I linked it in the Impeachment Tour thread too.

Perhaps the most interesting comment for me is his saying "This is why people who were against the invasion from Day one believe that choas must be avoided" or whatever. What he doesn't dare to explore is the issue of whether he thinks we "anti" people must now have some kind of moral obligation to support the war now that it is a fact, or whether we think staying or withdrawing won't make any difference, the die was cast when the first American shot was fired, and all roads now lead to disaster....you may think he implies it but he doesn't say one way of the other. Not that it makes any diffeerence to me. Kissinger was a morally dubious man himself in his heyday. But at least he appears to have learned his lesson, if not repented of it.