Iraqis Now Free To Do Whatever We Want Them To Do?
<a href=www.plastic.com>Plastic.com Found on New York Times (registration required) written by Djerrid, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 12 Apr 4:29am
Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor for Pres. Bush Sr. posed this question to him:
"What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."
Of the many reasons the current Bush Administration has given for the invasion of Iraq, freeing the Iraqi people from a dictatorship and replacing it with a representive democracy is the one they are currently touting (especially since WMD are nowhere to be found). Both Bush and Blair made pronouncements on Iraq's state television airwaves with Bush saying "The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you" and "You deserve to live as free people". Blair was as generous stating: "The money from Iraqi oil will be yours; to be used to build prosperity for you and your families". What would happen if the Iraqis actually took that at face value?
Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld told congress last month that "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to...the Iraqi government and the international community" and that the US would "tap Iraq's oil revenues". Assuming that Iraqis wouldn't want their oil taken from them to enrich Bush's bedside partners, if a true representative democracy was put in place, they would elect someone who would fight to keep control of their oil. As we have seen in Venezuela, the Bush Administration supports US- and business-friendly regimes over democratically elected governments. Can we expect anything less here? Especially with the second largest oil reserves in the world at stake? Will it then be possible for Iraq to vote for someone who isn't in tight with Bush's cronies?
[ comment on this story | more plastic... ]
show by change
- Democracy needs prosperity by somebaudy at Sat 12 Apr 5:13am score of 1 A democratic Iraq would be a wonderful thing. This will be difficult to achieve because the people there are poor. Any radical promising them anything is likely to win votes. It looks like there are islamic clerics managing towns. Let's hope this is not a remake of Iran in 1979.
It will take money and investments benefiting directly to the iraqi people before political parties that are all believing in democracy can emerge.
It could be wise to heal the country's economy first, maybe doing a smaller version of the Marshall plan first, wait for a democratic political scene to emerge and then hold elections. "insert something witty here"
- An interesting question. by MAYORBOB at Sat 12 Apr 5:32am score of 1.5 compelling The one about whether the U.S. government will stand by as the Iraqis democratically try to pick up the pieces. What would be pleasing to Washington would be some sort of secular client state of ours, eternally grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam. But what if the democratic Iraq that emerges isn't what we would like to see?
Supposing that the Iraqis democratically decide to rebuild their military? After all, at the point in time that they become a democratic Arab nation, they would sort of stand alone among the nations of the Middle East, other than Turkey and Israel. They would have a hostile Syria next door. They would have an antagonistic democracy in Iran next door with all those bones to pick with Iraq. They would have a democratic Turkey just to the North with an eagle's eye out if those pesky Kurds get the autonomy they have been insisting upon for years. What if they democratically selected some firebrand politician whose main platform was to get the U.S. out? Lastly, supposing they were to democratically decide to opt for the democratic model of Iran with a rather fundamentalist Islamic streak running through the body politic?
About the only thing I will predict is that the coming few years promise to be extremely interesting times for Iraq. "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"
3. Re: An interesting question. by MAYORBOB at Sat 12 Apr 5:39am score of 1 in reply to comment 2 A correlating interesting question is should Iraq be declared debt free. This was the topic of a previous plastic thread where the prevailing wisdom was yes. "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"
4. Here's an idea by Anonymous Idiot at Sat 12 Apr 9:14am score of 2 intriguing Sharing, Alaska-Style By Steven C. Clemons
The New York Times April 9, 2003
Though most Americans don't believe this war is about oil, much of the rest of the world does. How the United States handles Iraq's oil after the war is therefore crucial. For guidance, America might look to its experiences in Japan after World War II and — perhaps more surprisingly — in Alaska in the 1970's.
Most revolutions that produce stable democracies expand the number of stakeholders in the nation's economy. America's occupation of Japan succeeded not just because the United States purged Japan's warmongers and established a peace constitution but because it imposed land reform. American occupiers broke up vast estates held by the Japanese aristocracy and redistributed the land to farmers, thus linking Japan's most lucrative resource to millions of citizens. Now America should do the same with Iraq's most lucrative resource, oil.
Here is where Alaska comes in. In the 1970's, during the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the state realized that the new oil leases would produce an enormous windfall. Its citizens set up the Alaska Permanent Fund to manage this income, directing that the revenue be invested, the principal remain untouched and the gains be used for state infrastructure investments. A part of the proceeds was distributed as dividends to every Alaskan. By July 2002, the fund had grown to more than $23.5 billion. Dividend payments to Alaskan families averaged about $8,000 per year.
Iraq's annual oil revenue comes to approximately $20 billion. A postwar government could invest $12 billion a year in infrastructure to rebuild the nation. The other $8 billion could anchor an Iraq Permanent Fund, to be invested in a diverse set of international equities. The resulting income would go directly to Iraq's six million households. These payments would make a huge difference to families in a country whose per capita gross domestic product rests at about $2,500.
Establishing this fund would show a skeptical world that America will make sure Iraq's oil revenues directly benefit Iraqi citizens. By spreading capital broadly among new stakeholders, the plan would also prevent a sliver of Iraq's elite from becoming a new kleptocracy. Finally, the creation of an Iraqi oil fund could begin to help repair America's damaged image abroad — itself no small dividend at a time when many people remain suspicious about American motives in the Middle East.
Copyright: 2003 The New York Times
13. 'The Spice Must Flow' by Djerrid 3 hours, 28 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 4 Interesting, I wrote something similar in my original submission. If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him. So this idea could come about internally or externally.
The question I put forth in the submission was would this admin. with its history of trying to obtain as much power and control through every means, actually let control of the oil the hawks fought so hard for slip into the hands of the Iraqi people? Instead I'd bet the admin. would work to make sure Iraq is rebuilt just enough to get the oil flowing and to appease the international communitee, thereby retaining control of who will profit from the oil (themselves and their companies). So look forward to "terrorist" attacks and "pockets of resistance" to be used to justify the direct or indirect control of Iraqi's political and economic freedoms. Dad's Big Plan has a groupie
- Re: 'The Spice Must Flow' by advancedatheist 5 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 13 If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him.
That would actually be a good idea for the U.S. With our absurd GDP, you'd think we could get a basic dividend just for breathing. A no-strings stipend of even $5,000/year, regardless of income, could help more people get health insurance or buy their prescription drugs. That would give us a taste of what it's like to be shamefully dependent on multigenerational inherited wealth like some politicians I could name. "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!
5. Hell If I Know by uncarved block at Sat 12 Apr 9:17am score of 1 but in grand Plastic tradition, here's a few thoughts anyway. Unlike many others, I don't think the problem with the next government is going to be its repressiveness, at least not right away. A recent comment pointed out that unlike the post WWII reconstructions, there isn't any government left, nor would we want to return former Baath party officials to power. So the US is going to train this generation of police, firemen, and clerks. Men who want to push around others will not be welcome. Now, if we start shipping a few to the School of the Americas (or whatever it's called currently), then I'll pray for the future of normal Iraqis. The real trouble is going to be, IMHO, corruption. The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard; our 'corruption' would be thought restrained by leaders in Russia and even Mexico. The chances that the first elected leader of Iraq will be corrupt seems near certain. The name highest on the list right now, Chalabi (sp?), has a track record of 'misplacing' large sums of cash, but I doubt any of the other candidates with US ties are much better. Like it or not, fair or not, the first man will be "our man", no matter how independent he tries to be. Speaking in purely political terms (ie. amoral), it might be better for this chap if the US runs the oil operations for a while. You can't sell out what you don't control, after all, and that likely will be the charge levied against the first government a few years down the road. To answer the writeup, I don't think there's a chance in hell we'll allow anyone into office who won't cut a deal over the oil. For one, he will likely be doing so in the name of something else (Islam, national pride, political extremism of right or left) that will allow the US to label him 'unacceptable'-- and really, who's going to stop us from stepping in again, if we've even left by then? I'd also like to bring up a point made by Bernard Lewis, namely that this invasion hasn't changed as much as it seems, because the lesson taught the Muslim world has remained the same since Napoleon arrived in Egypt-- the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen. The French were displaced the British, and in Iraq, the US has deposed a regime we at least fostered, even if we didn't create it. This is the source of the sense of powerlessness that motivates men like bin Laden, and is the reason I (and others) never thought replacing Saddam was going to change the war on terror much. Now, one way we could counter this image is to allow an openly religious government to come to power in Iraq, but the chances of this are nil, IMO. Conventional wisdom in the US equates Islamic law with the Taliban, despite (again, thanks to Lewis) a long rich tradition of limited state and religious power. Iraq is secular enough, from what I've read, that a religious government might work; Iraqis have seen (and lived) enough modernity to know they don't want an Iranian style theocracy. Replacing Saddam with a functional Islamic democracy would be the single biggest blow we could strike against the Islamofacists-- but will it fly with the base of Bush's party? As a general rule, any policy that takes more than one sentence to explain is a political loser, and man, explaining this would take a paragraph. (Oh, and in reference to a recent Plastic article, there's really no problem using 'he' throughout-- the chances of a woman attaining any power next door to Saudi Arabia seems very, very slim indeed). Eschew Obsfucation Assiduously
12. Re: Hell If I Know by mightygodking 5 hours, 43 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 5 The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard
I don't think anybody told Italy or Spain that.
6. A Revelant Fable by Anonymous Idiot at Sat 12 Apr 10:59am score of 0.5 interesting Once upon a time, there were some people who had been living in a desert with two rivers for about 7,000 years. They may have independently discovered or invented civilization as we know it, but they were incapable of conceiving anything but a despotic tyrant to run it. Thus it had always been, for 7,000 years.
Then along came a cowboy called Dubya and his sidekicks. They reckoned they had a better idea. So they called their buddies, the Marines and the Airborne, who kicked the current tyrant's ass. Then they told the people that they were to use something called "democracy" to choose a leader who was NOT a tyrannical, blood-thirsty despot. The people were supposed to organize not just one, but at least two "political parties," and hold "elections" to a "parliament" or "national assembly" as well as select a "president" to run the show.
Dubya told them that they also needed a "supreme court" and a "constitution."
The people got to work, doing as they were instructed, but Dubya didn't like the results. The "politicians" chosen by the people to staff the national assembly and the presidency didn't want to sell their natural resources to Dubya and his friends for the prices Dubya liked.
Fortunately, there were some irregularities in the "vote count," and the new supreme court appointed some people whom Dubya and his friends did indeed find suitable.
Moral: When exporting democracy, make sure to export your own brand of it.
7. bitter much? by chasing at Sat 12 Apr 11:18am score of 1 If the Iraqi's vote for some radicals, well let them. It's their country. I just hope they keep the ability to vote the radicals out again, if they so desire. But you know, with radicals, you can never tell...
As for the oil. You'd prefer they gave the contracts to some happy local companies? Which ones? It'd be easier to pick apart the contracts already given if I knew exactly what was in them, but my (admittedly quick) perusal of related articles didn't uncover that. Are they contracts stretching years, or until such a time as a successor government can make determinations of their own? I think it makes a difference.
As for the "many reasons", talk about a pot-shot. I don't think one reasons ever really supplanted any other, rather they just sort of piled on. But what's WMD got to do with Bush's oil cronies (if you choose to look upon them as cronies anyway)? The administrations hasn't dropped the WMD argument, after all. Let's not pretend they have. I think maybe you're getting some (WMD) peanut butter in their (oil) chocolate. A valid concern, but better when tackled separately.
8. Iraq as libertarian utopia by advancedatheist at Sat 12 Apr 11:33am score of 1.5 disingenuous I'm wondering why all the world's oppressed libertarians aren't now flocking to Iraq.
After all, we now have a country with no taxes; no speed limits; no minimum wage laws; no environmental regulations; no age of consent laws; no restrictions on firearms, pornography, prostition & drugs; no social democracy; no public health provisions; etc.
What more would a libertarian want? "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!
15. Things that make you go Hmmm... by Iluminati 1 hour, 56 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 8 You know what, atheist dude, you have a point. Even though I was (and still am) the initiation of force by the US government the admittedly evil government of Saddam Hussein, you do have a point. This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world.
However, I'm a bit nervous about experimental governance. The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile. Can we figure out a way to do the free minds, free markets thing without some bloodshed? I just want a place when I can chill without cops harassing on general principle without thousands of innocent civilians dying first. All I ask, America, is to do what you said on paper. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Re: Things that make you go Hmmm... by advancedatheist 31 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 15 This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world.
Not to mention Islam. The Koran forbids theft and commands that thieves lose their hands, but the Muslims shopping Iraq's going-out-of-business sale don't seem to be worried about that.
It's about time to put this romantic libertarian fantasy away. The empirical historical evidence shows that most people need an effective government to keep them in line because they lack foresight & self-control.
The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile.
Apparently the free-market fundamentalists who point to Chile's privatized social security system as a model for the U.S. aren't bothered by the fact that this system was imposed upon the Chilean people by a military dictatorship. Given the erosion of responsible civilian government in the U.S., these advocates might be more prophetic than they realized. "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!
16. Re: Iraq as libertarian utopia by Nameless Cynic 2 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 8 You're correlating the fall of the government with "no laws." Sorry, AA. I know religion isn't your strong suit, but they have laws.
In fact, three of the items you mention (pornography, prostitution and drugs) are specifically mentioned. (Drugs fall under the same strictures as alcohol.) Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. ~~ Winston Churchill
11. Not the Future You Would Expect.... by Krv at Sat 12 Apr 3:42pm score of 1 I think that the Bush adminsitration is truthfull when they are promising the Iraqi nation freedom. The freedom they are promising the them is economic freedom, not political freedom. The model for the Iraqi future is not that which, we Americans are presently familiar with... the freedoms and personal liberties outlined in our Constitution, ideas distilled from the works of those great personages of the Age of Enlightenment. Iraq will be a society organized on the principle of a Capitalist Autocracy. The same model America is headed for in the future (where we will be joined by China and Singapore).
14. It's all in the rules by M. Mosher 2 hours, 37 minutes ago score of 1 Rebuilding the country and helping to institute democracy in Iraq will not happen by announcing an election and inviting candidates to step forward. Before elections, some sort of constitution or articles of federation will have to be drawn up. These will, after all, determine the rules by which the democracy is run. A constitutional convention (I'm using Americanisms here because that is what I'm more familiar with — it can just as easily be a parliament or something else) must be formed made up of tribal leaders, ethnic representatives, local and regional leaders, religious leaders, and others. This convention will hammer out the rules.
The rules will entail lots of things but elections and changes to the rules will be included. Ideally, the rules will disallow too much power in the hands of too few and it will disallow tyrants. The rules should make sure that one group cannot be brutalized by another. They should spell out rights and obligations of citizens and limits of governmental power. They might (probably should) separate the military and the police, they should remove the courts from the jurisdiction of the prime minister or president. In short, the rules should be written in such a way that no matter who gets elected Iraq will not sink back into a dictatorship.
Then, when the country is ready and everyone understands the rules as written by the Iraqis themselves, elections can be held for the actual administration and legislation of Iraq. This is the point at which the world will become interested to see if wannabe dictators rise to power and to see if newly elected leaders set about trying to change the rules. If Iraq decides to make itself an Islamic republic, that is their decision.
Where the US will get its knickers bunched is if Iraq wants from the very beginning to model itself into another 13th century caliphate. The US and UK hope that Iraqi dissident groups living in the west for so many years have absorbed western ideas of governance and will have the ability to influence the new rules enough to form a functioning democracy there.
Arabs have a traditional fondness and aptitude for capitalism and a distrust of socialism so the US is probably banking on not having to do much to steer the economic system under which the country will operate. Nationalizing oil revenues or setting aside a portion for a general fund is probably the extent of socialism the US is hoping for. However, since oil is about the only source of foreign exchange for Iraq, most of the needs of Iraqis will have to be paid for through socialized oil.
If it works well, the rules or constitution will prevent oil revenues from being siphoned away from people's needs and into palaces and a large military. Time will tell.