Post-World War II Lessons Show Building Iraqi Democracy is V

[hist2004]

Post-World War II Lessons Show Building Iraqi Democracy is Vital

Jewish World Review
June 04, 2004

This weekend, hundreds of thousands will pay tribute at the scores of memorials in Normandy to those who in June 1944 landed on the beaches and dropped from the sky to begin the liberation of western Europe.

Last weekend Americans unveiled a monument in Washington, D.C., to those who served during World War II.

Monuments are a tangible focus for remembrance, but more important is the legacy of war. As the United States and its closest ally, Britain, fight a war in Iraq, it is worth asking what the legacy of these battles should be.

The legacy of the Allied victory in World War II was remarkably broad and impressively enduring. In western Europe the result was democracy and economic prosperity. Not only did the United States and Britain rebuild and revive the economies and societies of their enemies-foes whose conduct had been so vile as to merit no compassion - they also fostered the reintegration of Germany and Japan into the international community.

Peace and post-war American protection gave west Europeans the opportunity for cooperation rather than confrontation. Today, west Europeans take their peace and stability for granted in a way that their grandparents could not.

The positive legacy of World War II is a high benchmark against which to measure the effects of any war. What is notable today, however, is the willingness of some to settle for almost no bequest of which the United States can be proud in Iraq.

Barely a year after liberating Iraq, many commentators have written off all that the United States has achieved and have sunk into a sullen despondency of asserting that no good can come from a continued U.S. presence.

The code words for settling for little from the Iraq war, for abandoning Iraq, are all over the opinion pages. The United States should be "realistic" ... "lower its expectations" ... "cut our losses now, while they are relatively modest" ... "set a date to pull out" ... "eat a little humble pie."

All those phrases translate into a willingness to allow Iraq to fail and possibly descend into chaos as the United States hurries out.

Perhaps the most bizarre proposal is "making do with lemons," an oblique call for burying Iraq's nascent democracy and accepting a possible restoration of dictatorship, which King Abdullah of Jordan has all but called for.

The gains of World War II, however, were not achieved within a year after its end. For instance, it took three years to introduce the Deutsche Mark in what economists now regard as a model of currency reform.

In Iraq, however, during conditions of ongoing conflict and just six months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States started a currency reform so successful that it has barely been reported.

There was no German state for four years - while in Iraq an interim constitution settled by consensus between five different ethnic and religious groups was agreed less than a year after liberation.

In Germany, security came through democracy: There was no trade-off between the two. As the late British academic Philip Windsor famously remarked, the Bundeswehr had to be strong enough to fend off the Soviet threat but not so strong as to menace Luxembourg.

The same challenge applies to Iraq, where the army had an established record of genocide and aggression. The new Iraqi army will have to defend against possible external threats, but never again be able to commit genocide against the Kurds or Marsh Arabs nor menace the independence of Kuwait.

It is only through the legacy of a democratic Iraq that the country will have an army that will instill pride at home without stoking fear abroad.

The U.S. commitment to western Europe after World War II stemmed in part from the painful awareness that the rapid withdrawal after the victory of World War I had allowed the seeds of conflict to put down roots and grow anew with a vengeance.

The same temptation, to declare victory too early and return home as quickly as possible, is being offered to Americans as sound policy for Iraq.

But that mistake has already been made in Iraq, where the unfinished business of 1991 inexorably led to the costlier war that began in March 2003.

Finishing the job and leaving behind a democratic Iraq is not a wild dream, but part of the best legacy there can possibly be: not to have to send young Americans back to fight and die where their fathers did before them.

Andrew Apostolou is Director of Research for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan Washington-based policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Author: Apostolou, Andrew

Regards,
Hist2004

[cut]

Both countries (Japan & W. Germany) were on the neighbours to the Soviet Union, if they hadn't embrassed the way of their occupiers, it would have meant communism whoch many of them would rather not have. If you look at Iraq the choice is the way of the occupiers (the West/America) or the arab world, which one are they going to choose.

Like before I think the UN should be there to foster Iraqi democracy as it did to german democracy.

But I won't be surprised if, should this fail as it is still likely to do so, the anti-UN people will blame the UN instead of Bush's timing for going to war.

[Kitsune]

:roll:

Here we go again...

I quote myself from http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15067&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=32 :


"It worked back then with Germany and Japan"
That is a statement many people made. Possibly it is one of the main reasons why the Neocons thought it would work. But "learning from history" is a tricky thing, Argyll. You sometimes learn the wrong things.

Why did it work in Germany?

1) Germany is a European nation. Democracy and its principles (applied in France and the US, to a lesser degree in Great Britain) were known and discussed in Germany. In 1848 there was even a peaceful democratic revolution attempt, that nearly succeeded in transforming Germany to a democratic state (did you know that? ), complete with a drafted constitution (Paulskirchen Verfassung) on which later German democratic constitutions were based. In the end, it did not work...but it came quite close.
After WWI, there was a democratic period (which did actually take longer than the Nazi "era") and had the Franch and the British not consistently humiliated this democratic Germany, and undermined its economy (the "roaring twenties" weren't that roaring in Germany because of the huge reparation payments, Germany had to pay) it just might have been stable.
So Germany had a democratic tradition. Not as proud and deep as the ones of France or America, but it was there.
But something like this is missing in Iraq.

2) When WWII ended Germany was in ruins. Soldiers brought the memories of years of fighting back home (if they came home at all). And WWI with his million of dead was still in many peoples bones...so you can say, the Germans had enough. Most wanted a boring life, a boring wife, boring kids, a boring job, three boring (but filling) meals a day...people who might have seen both the hell of Verdun AND the horror of the eastern front have had enough "adventure" for 10 lives.
So there was not that much interest to keep on fighting.
That't different in Iraq.

3) Then there is the Holocaust. The horrible pictures of the American bulldozer with the countless skeletal cadavers in Bergen-Belsen...the horrible stories of victims of the Nazi terror....Auschwitz...Treblinka...the questions: "What have we fought for?" and "What have we done?"....this is what created self doubt (lingering with the Germans to this very day) and effectively sucks the fighting spirit out of the people. After all...you start to understand your enemies: YOU were the evil one.
That prevented many from fighting for a resistance movement.
That is not the case with Iraq, there is no comparable sense of guilt there.

4) Main difference: The Soviet Union. So suppose you (as a West German) join the resistance. Suppose you kick the butts of the Americans. Suppose they start to piss their pants and run back home to mummy...in that (rather unlikely) case...what would happen? Presumably, the Sovets would take over. Thats just wonderful! Of course we all want that to happen...
Without irony: The antagonism towards the Soviet Union (the main war adversary) created an effective bond between the US and Germany (and Britain, and France). This threat very much stabilized the situation. Even if you are a battlehardened, proud German-super-warrior-killing machine, with endless thirst for battle in you that all the years at the Eastern front could not quench, if you care **** about democracy and feel not the slightes bit of guilt for the Holocaust...this is the convincing reason why NOT to join (or found) a resistance movement against the Americans. Probably you even join them, or the french foreign legion, to kill commies in Vietnam (some did actually)...
But in Iraq there is no such external enemy.


Learning from history is a good thing. But if you learn things that histrory doesn't teach, you get into trouble. And that is what Andrew Apostolou should keep in mind.

[budanski]

History also shows that democratic republics didn't have much of a chance before 1776 as well.

The "enlighten" class has largely overlooked the "accidental democracy" already functioning in Northern Iraq. Outside the media limelight of all things doom and gloom, how many people know that the Kurds have already held free elections? It may not be any Jeffersonian ideal of open society, but they've proven that democracy can succeed in that part of the world which provides a model for self-governance in Iraq.

Hey, it worked for Israel and Turkey... Which in fact, with all the flaws, Turkey is a longer-running democracy than Germany or Russia.

[mrfloppy]

....Which in fact, with all the flaws, Turkey is a longer-running democracy than Germany or Russia.

Well, that's not correct as far as Germany is concerned - the "Weimarer Republik" has been proclaimed on 11.09.1918 by Philipp Scheidemann, while in Turkey Atatürk proclaimed the Turkish Republic on 10.29.1923. As we all know Hitler did away with Democracy in Germany, while in Turkey - between 1960 and 1982 - there have been three military coups.
Germany has not been a stable democracy before 1949, while Turkey hasn't relly been a stable democracy before 1982/1983.

[budanski]

Well, that's not correct as far as Germany is concerned - the "Weimarer Republik" has been proclaimed on 11.09.1918 by Philipp Scheidemann, while in Turkey Atatürk proclaimed the Turkish Republic on 10.29.1923. As we all know Hitler did away with Democracy in Germany, while in Turkey - between 1960 and 1982 - there have been three military coups.
Germany has not been a stable democracy before 1949, while Turkey hasn't relly been a stable democracy before 1982/1983.
I stand corrected then. You pointed to the short-lived democratic experiment in Germany, which was later aborted by the National Socialists. By comparison, Turkey came aboard just a few years later but functioned uninterrupted --- as I thought when I made my comment. You are absolutely correct, however: the military coups in Turkey must also be counted as interruptions of the democratic rule, although not as severe, perhaps, as Hitlerism in Germany.

Given the correction that you made, one can probably make a slightly more mild statement, namely, that (i) the time span of democracy in Turkey is comparable to that of Germany, and (ii) at its lowest points it was higher than that in Germany.

I won't forget the coups in this context in the future. ;)

[Kitsune]

budanski wrote:

the short-lived democratic experiment in Germany
The National Socialist experiment, that followed on the democratic one, was even shorter (that includes the war years).

And I again have to mention the nearly successfull democratic revolution in 1848. It failed...but do you realize how many things in history only succeed by a small margin with help of random chance? The American war of independence for example...all it needed was one more lost battle and your democratic tradition may never have come to pass. What if George Washington hadn't lived? Or a certain Prussian with the name von Steuben had declined Washingtons offer to train the American settlers?

Its similiar with Germany in 1848. Only here it failed.
Or the Weimarian Republic: it may have lasted, without the stock market crash in 1929 for example. Or if the French and British had strengthened the Democratic German government, instead of humiliating it. (Only Hitler was shown some respect...what do you think was the message to the German people?) Best would have been, if the victorious powers of WWI hadn't insisted on the Versailles treaty (or in the American case, let it happen although they never ratified it)...all these things probably would have saved the democratic Germany and would have prevented Hitler from coming to power.

In the end, chance plays its role in history. Humans simply lack the ability to control the course of fate. Probably one can say that todays Iraq crisis is another example for this.

Concerning Turkey one must add, that, while "its lowest point is higher than in Germany"...it isn't as democratic today or human rights and liberty respecting as a typical West European state, including Germany. Because Turkey wants to enter the EU it is working on its deficits here...but wether this story will have an happy end will have to be seen. If it turns out well (2040 or so is the earliest time to judge, I think) the Turks will be able to say, that they did it on their own...the EU just created the stimulus. And that no force was needed. Would be nice, wouldn't it?

Only time will tell... :|

[Tane Angle]

budanski, excellent point about Kurdistan. It really voids a lot of the stereotypes about Muslims, no?

However, Germany, Japan, and Kurdistan are all relatively homogeneous ethnically and religiously. Iraq as a whole is not so. Yugoslavia as a whole has had the same problem. That's why it split. Afghanistan has too. I saw the same problem in Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it could be argued, is rather similar. And certainly many of the conflicts in Africa have similar core problems.

Perhaps the ideal solution would be to split Iraq into three nations, or at least a confederacy of three cantons. Will that happen? Extremely doubtfully. But it's a nice thought, no?

When people came to America, they more or less gave up at least part of their ethnicity and culture in exchange for coming here. That's the deal people make in order to share in democracy. The same is true in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But that deals with immigration. The Iraqis are not immigrating, they are already there. We honestly have never seen-at least not to my knowledge-whether or not so many non-immigrating groups can change their nation so.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Jehuty]

Or the Weimarian Republic: it may have lasted, without the stock market crash in 1929 for example. Or if the French and British had strengthened the Democratic German government, instead of humiliating it. (Only Hitler was shown some respect...what do you think was the message to the German people?) Best would have been, if the victorious powers of WWI hadn't insisted on the Versailles treaty (or in the American case, let it happen although they never ratified it)...all these things probably would have saved the democratic Germany and would have prevented Hitler from coming to power.

The indemnities have never been fully paid and have been definitely canceled before Hitler came to power.You can't explain the rise of nazism only by the treaty of Versailles :roll:
The Republic of Weimar failed to do proper social policies and Brüning didn't manage at all the economic crisis of 1929 and let it became worst precisely to get ride of the indemnities.The governments were unstable and disconnected from a population which always considered the Weimar republic as humiliating because it was a regim born in defeat.Not to mention that Germany didn't have a true experience of democraty before, the "romantic" revolutions of 1848 in Europe (Italy, Germany, Austria...) failed exept for France, which launched the movement.
It failed because of Germany, don't look for a scapegoat. :roll:

EDIT: And i don't say that the treaty of Versailles didn't had strong effects on germany's economy, but it can in no way explain alone the failure of Weimar's republic.

[Red]

budanski, excellent point about Kurdistan. It really voids a lot of the stereotypes about Muslims, no?

However, Germany, Japan, and Kurdistan are all relatively homogeneous ethnically and religiously. Iraq as a whole is not so. Yugoslavia as a whole has had the same problem. That's why it split. Afghanistan has too. I saw the same problem in Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it could be argued, is rather similar. And certainly many of the conflicts in Africa have similar core problems.

Perhaps the ideal solution would be to split Iraq into three nations, or at least a confederacy of three cantons. Will that happen? Extremely doubtfully. But it's a nice thought, no?

When people came to America, they more or less gave up at least part of their ethnicity and culture in exchange for coming here. That's the deal people make in order to share in democracy. The same is true in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But that deals with immigration. The Iraqis are not immigrating, they are already there. We honestly have never seen-at least not to my knowledge-whether or not so many non-immigrating groups can change their nation so.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
excellently put,this is the same thing that is going on in NIgeria and just as Tane suggested,the idea of splitting the country into different groups might just happen to be the best bet for peace

[Kitsune]

@jehuty:

The indemnities have never been fully paid and have been definitely canceled before Hitler came to power.You can't explain the rise of nazism only by the treaty of Versailles
The Republic of Weimar failed to do proper social policies and Brüning didn't manage at all the economic crisis of 1929 and let it became worst precisely to get ride of the indemnities.The governments were unstable and disconnected from a population which always considered the Weimar republic as humiliating because it was a regim born in defeat.Not to mention that Germany didn't have a true experience of democraty before, the "romantic" revolutions of 1848 in Europe (Italy, Germany, Austria...) failed exept for France, which launched the movement.
It failed because of Germany, don't look for a scapegoat.

EDIT: And i don't say that the treaty of Versailles didn't had strong effects on germany's economy, but it can in no way explain alone the failure of Weimar's republic.

Sry my friend. One can say that the Versailles treaty was a cause. As was the behaviour of France. Of course the French didn't see it coming, but it did not change the fact.

Had the victorious powers made a treaty that tried to reconciliate and not humiliate, the course of history would have been different. Instead, Germany lost HUGE territories to the east and west. Lost all colonies. Was not allowed to have an army, that could defend it. Had to pay crushing indemnities until 1984 (!), which were the main reason for the economic troubles during the twenties (German economy took of from 1925 onwards to the stock market crash, but during the time before, during the fragile postwar years, the effect of the reparation payments was heavily felt).
Moreover, the treaty created a sense of humilation, that was bitterly felt by many Germans, and created the foundation for the unholy alliance that brought Hitler to power. The Weimarian Democrat regime on the other hand, never escaped the accusation to be a result of the lost war (or even a cause of it). And Frances saberrattling and parttime occupations of German territory to prove its military superiority made the matter worse.

The Nazi Regime was NOT something that was based on the German genes, it was not even something that had to come inevitably. It was the result of the special situation after WWI, and more precisely, after 1929. (The Weimarian Republic, was stabilizing with the economic success after 1925, this changed on black Friday...)
The humiliation of the Weimarian Republic contributed to its failure as did the respect shown to Hitler during the 30ties (did France boycott the Olympic games in 1936?) to his success.

As for France, there is no reason to feel superior. The revolution of 1789 turned into a nightmare fast and finally ended in Napoleons regime. He may have been a great man, and he did create the code civil...but he was no democrat, but a military dictator. Imagine if, during the battle of Waterloo, the troops appearing at the French flank would not have been Prussian but the French troops Naopoleon had send out to hunt for them...he was winning this battle until that point. It might have saved him. In that case France may have never become a beacon of democracy, but a pillar of imperialism. Again, it were random and chances at work.

[Kitsune]

@tane angel and red

As for budanski, there is nothing "excellent" about him. While the Kurds may have helt elections by now, you probably forgot that they didn't need the invasion of Iraq. From the late nineties on they had there own little state, free of Saddam.
This independance (they were economic quite prospering, too, albeit through smuggling ;) ) was not bettered in anyway by OIF.
So there is no justification to declare it a success because of the present Kurd situtation.

[Jehuty]

The humiliation of the Weimarian Republic contributed to its failure.

And there are others majors reasons which are Germans.Sure it had an influence, but the way you say "Germany could have been a democracy without the treaty of Versailles" is purely hypothetical and looks only like a scapegoat.
Good read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic)


Besides, it is entirely hypothetical to claim that Nazism could have been avoided, had a certain decision not been made. For example, one interesting such speculation is how the NSDAP would have fared in the 1933 elections if Hitler had not had the bonus of government.

It is probably safe to state, however, that no single reason is sufficient to explain the rise of Nazism. The most commonly stated attempts shall be outlined below; one can group these into three major patterns, being economical, institutional, and personal.


As for France, there is no reason to feel superior. The revolution of 1789 turned into a nightmare fast and finally ended in Napoleons regime. He may have been a great man, and he did create the code civil...but he was no democrat, but a military dictator. Imagine if, during the battle of Waterloo, the troops appearing at the French flank would not have been Prussian but the French troops Naopoleon had send out to hunt for them...he was winning this battle until that point. It might have saved him. In that case France may have never become a beacon of democracy, but a pillar of imperialism.

I never said we are "superior", but 1789 and 1848 were still democratic experience, and changed forever French society.That's why it didn't failed in France in 1848 for exemple (the Republic then failed, but that's different), that's why a lot of others countries have been democraties only later or through wars.


Again, it were random and chances at work.

There is no randomness in History, only causes and consequences.What you said about Waterloo is cause and consequence, not randomness.Your big what-if are not history.

[Kitsune]

Sure it had an influence, but the way you say "Germany could have been a democracy without the treaty of Versailles" is purely hypothetical

Sure it is Jehuty. And I do not want to say: It was all the fault of France.
I wanted to say: Things are comlicated, they have many reasons and ONE of these is the behaviour of France and the other victors of WWI. Only one. To say: we had NOTHING to do with it is wrong.

The mechanics of history are complex, and that was the point of this thread: How historic developement can be shaped or, as I argue, is actually very difficult to shape. Its doesn't matter how you call this, "cause and consequences" or "randomness", that's semantics. Probably all is ordered, but that doesn't matter as long as we don't understand that order. Probably all is preordained, but that doesn't matter, as long as we can't find out what is preordained.
What history teaches us, is, in my opinion:
Dont't try to force things. If one does, one will probably sow resentment and the thirst for revenge. And one will probably reap bitter fruit in the end.

[Shadow]

:roll:

Here we go again...

I quote myself from http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15067&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=32 :


"It worked back then with Germany and Japan"
That is a statement many people made. Possibly it is one of the main reasons why the Neocons thought it would work. But "learning from history" is a tricky thing, Argyll. You sometimes learn the wrong things.

Why did it work in Germany?

1) Germany is a European nation. Democracy and its principles (applied in France and the US, to a lesser degree in Great Britain) were known and discussed in Germany. In 1848 there was even a peaceful democratic revolution attempt, that nearly succeeded in transforming Germany to a democratic state (did you know that? ), complete with a drafted constitution (Paulskirchen Verfassung) on which later German democratic constitutions were based. In the end, it did not work...but it came quite close.
After WWI, there was a democratic period (which did actually take longer than the Nazi "era") and had the Franch and the British not consistently humiliated this democratic Germany, and undermined its economy (the "roaring twenties" weren't that roaring in Germany because of the huge reparation payments, Germany had to pay) it just might have been stable.
So Germany had a democratic tradition. Not as proud and deep as the ones of France or America, but it was there.
But something like this is missing in Iraq.

2) When WWII ended Germany was in ruins. Soldiers brought the memories of years of fighting back home (if they came home at all). And WWI with his million of dead was still in many peoples bones...so you can say, the Germans had enough. Most wanted a boring life, a boring wife, boring kids, a boring job, three boring (but filling) meals a day...people who might have seen both the hell of Verdun AND the horror of the eastern front have had enough "adventure" for 10 lives.
So there was not that much interest to keep on fighting.
That't different in Iraq.

3) Then there is the Holocaust. The horrible pictures of the American bulldozer with the countless skeletal cadavers in Bergen-Belsen...the horrible stories of victims of the Nazi terror....Auschwitz...Treblinka...the questions: "What have we fought for?" and "What have we done?"....this is what created self doubt (lingering with the Germans to this very day) and effectively sucks the fighting spirit out of the people. After all...you start to understand your enemies: YOU were the evil one.
That prevented many from fighting for a resistance movement.
That is not the case with Iraq, there is no comparable sense of guilt there.

4) Main difference: The Soviet Union. So suppose you (as a West German) join the resistance. Suppose you kick the butts of the Americans. Suppose they start to piss their pants and run back home to mummy...in that (rather unlikely) case...what would happen? Presumably, the Sovets would take over. Thats just wonderful! Of course we all want that to happen...
Without irony: The antagonism towards the Soviet Union (the main war adversary) created an effective bond between the US and Germany (and Britain, and France). This threat very much stabilized the situation. Even if you are a battlehardened, proud German-super-warrior-killing machine, with endless thirst for battle in you that all the years at the Eastern front could not quench, if you care **** about democracy and feel not the slightes bit of guilt for the Holocaust...this is the convincing reason why NOT to join (or found) a resistance movement against the Americans. Probably you even join them, or the french foreign legion, to kill commies in Vietnam (some did actually)...
But in Iraq there is no such external enemy.


Learning from history is a good thing. But if you learn things that histrory doesn't teach, you get into trouble. And that is what Andrew Apostolou should keep in mind.

And don't forget Know-How and Skill!!
And unlike Iraq Germany didn't had many conflicting ethnic groups.

[pinkeye]

@tane angel and red

As for budanski, there is nothing "excellent" about him. While the Kurds may have helt elections by now, you probably forgot that they didn't need the invasion of Iraq. From the late nineties on they had there own little state, free of Saddam.
This independance (they were economic quite prospering, too, albeit through smuggling ;) ) was not bettered in anyway by OIF.
So there is no justification to declare it a success because of the present Kurd situtation.

you are absolutely correct. one cannot point to the kurish experiment and somehow posit the same outcome can emerge in the rest of iraq. and let's not forget the turkmen population, over two million strong and inhabiting a large portion of iraq, from the north to south of diala. accordingly, northen iraq is not homogenous as some will claim, and the kurdish democratic experience, which is only partially democratic, is fraught with peril.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

As I see it, the question is twofold;

can Iraq, as defined by current borders, be considered one nation and;
can this nation function as a democracy.

Well, the first question has already been answered - while there are certainly a lot of different groups, it's obvious that Iraq can at least function as one nation. It did under Saddam. He used good old fashioned corruption/enticement and violence to keep it together.

On the second question - supposing that Iraq cannot function similarly to a Western nation supposes that either the people are incapable of grasping democratic principles or that democracy is too alien to their culture to be adopted. Neither is true - Saddam even recognized this reality with his famously false elections. Remember that Saddam never called himself a dictator to his own people - he was simply the elected head of a democratically elected government. It was a sham democracy to be sure, but the people are very familiar with the benefits of an electorate, the power structure, and how it's supposed to work.

Therefore, IMHO, Iraq has a perfectly good chance of becoming a democracy. Iraq is not Iran, not Afghanistan, and not Pakistan. They are more western than that - thanks in part (oddly) to Saddam. We simply need to ply the people with the appropriate "goodies" to make them take an interest.

They will need both the carrot and stick. The carrot would of course be the opportunity and prosperity of democracy. The stick must be the threats posed by Islamist neighbors. These two combined with the expansion of the Iraqi middle class will have a solidifying effect.

I just think people are so barraged by information (TV news etc.) that when they don't see instant success, they consider it a failure. Germany took years. More people died in a battle for a single bridge on D-day than have died in the entire Iraqi operation. But there were no cameras. Things this big take time. Hell, if somebody from outer space were to look at the US - with every group from rednecks to militant lesbians to the Amish & the Hollywood elite - they'd be convinced democracy could never work here either.

[mrfloppy]

....supposing that Iraq cannot function similarly to a Western nation supposes that either the people are incapable of grasping democratic principles or that democracy is too alien to their culture to be adopted. Neither is true - Saddam even recognized this reality with his famously false elections. Remember that Saddam never called himself a dictator to his own people - he was simply the elected head of a democratically elected government. It was a sham democracy to be sure, but the people are very familiar with the benefits of an electorate, the power structure, and how it's supposed to work.

A very interesting way to look at Iraqi politics. Even though Iraq calls itself a "Republic" since 1958, they never really had democratic elections. Saddam Hussein took over from his predecessor Al Bakr. Right after that, he got rid of all those who might have opposed him. When he staged the elections to reconfirm his presidency, everyone (but you?) knew, that they weren't going to be fair and democratic. How could anyone learn the benefits of democracy this way? Do you really want to tell us that the Iraqi people learned democracy??? If they do connect democracy and voting for Saddam Hussein, it might become even more difficult to teach the average Iraqi that there is something good in democracy.


They will need both the carrot and stick. The carrot would of course be the opportunity and prosperity of democracy. The stick must be the threats posed by Islamist neighbors. These two combined with the expansion of the Iraqi middle class will have a solidifying effect.

Ahhhh, of course, it's as easy as 1,2,3........... :cantbeli: Their islamist neighbour(s) may be perceived as a threat by you, but I wouldn't feel to confident, that the Iraqis themselves have the same opinion about islamism. Right now, the Coalition is the stick, but there's no carrot in sight. You shouldn't forget that they are mostly muslims themselves.
How are you going to expand the Iraqi middleclass - who is the Iraqi middleclass?


I just think people are so barraged by information (TV news etc.) that when they don't see instant success, they consider it a failure. Germany took years.

So you belong to those that don't watch TV and never read a newspaper etc.? That must be the reason why you lack knowledge and confuse things. It didn't take years to bring democracy back to fruition in Germany. There was no resistance against the occupation, once the war was over. People were fed up with fighting. For instance, the Germans didn't consider the Allies as infidels.


More people died in a battle for a single bridge on D-day than have died in the entire Iraqi operation.

True, but this is only another proof, that those two situations (and countries) can't be compared. With the Germans (and Japan) the war was tough and bloody, but the occupation was peaceful. In Iraq it's just the other way around - the war was short with almost no losses and no resistance, but "peace" is bloody. It just doesn't make sense to compare Iraq and Germany (/Japan) - no matter how often a member of the US-government mentions it.


Hell, if somebody from outer space were to look at the US - with every group from rednecks to militant lesbians to the Amish & the Hollywood elite - they'd be convinced democracy could never work here either.

These groups can only coexist and prosper because of a democracy and not in spite of a democracy. You can hardly compare that with religious groups that share an old tradition of enmity and have never lived under the roof of democracy...

[Secret Squirrel]

Well, the first question has already been answered - while there are certainly a lot of different groups, it's obvious that Iraq can at least function as one nation. It did under Saddam. He used good old fashioned corruption/enticement and violence to keep it together.


How did Iraq function as one nation under Saddam? I could be wrong, but didnt the Kurds have their own thing going?

[Kitsune]

Iraq functioned simply by oppression. The sunni minority, led by Saddam Hussein, ruled, everyone who threatened this rule was in grave danger of being imprisoned or killed, whereas people who did not threaten Saddams supremacy were usually left alone. His rule was a laicist one, meaning that state affairs were dominated by worldy and not religious matters. One good thing with him was, that he was quite tolerant when it came to religion: even the christian minority could practice its religion without fear (Saddam was a bit wary of the Shiite majority, whose religious practices tended to the fanatical end).
During the eighties Kurds in the north attempted an uprising, it was crushed with brutal force, Saddam even had mustard gas used against civilians...that ended the matter. In the early nineties, just after Gulfwar I, George Bush senior encouraged the Shiits to throw off Saddams rule. Saddam crushed this insurrection, too, the mass graves wherein around 300.000 people are buried, were nearly created during the crushing of this uprising.
But Iraq in the nineties was a weak state, militarily and economically in shambles. The Kurds in the north used this to silently throw off Saddams yoke, Saddam had to withdraw his troops from northern Iraq (this happened largely without the world noticing it). So, the Kurds had a region of their own, the Peshmerga, the Kurdish miltia, controlled the region and its people prospered through smuggling (oil for example).
During and after OIF the Kurds were and are the staunchest allies of the US...they realize that if they wouldn't be, the Americans would turn to the Turks, who rather would see this Kurdish experiment in souvereignty ended. Since Turkey is much more important to US interests then the Kurds, that may happen in any case. The constant Turk/Kurd balancing act is quite a delicate thing for the State Department. Time will tell how this turns out.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

A very interesting way to look at Iraqi politics. Even though Iraq calls itself a "Republic" since 1958, they never really had democratic elections. Saddam Hussein took over from his predecessor Al Bakr. Right after that, he got rid of all those who might have opposed him. When he staged the elections to reconfirm his presidency, everyone (but you?) knew, that they weren't going to be fair and democratic. How could anyone learn the benefits of democracy this way? Do you really want to tell us that the Iraqi people learned democracy??? If they do connect democracy and voting for Saddam Hussein, it might become even more difficult to teach the average Iraqi that there is something good in democracy.

Did you even bother to read my post?


Ahhhh, of course, it's as easy as 1,2,3........... :cantbeli: Their islamist neighbour(s) may be perceived as a threat by you, but I wouldn't feel to confident, that the Iraqis themselves have the same opinion about islamism. Right now, the Coalition is the stick, but there's no carrot in sight. You shouldn't forget that they are mostly muslims themselves.
How are you going to expand the Iraqi middleclass - who is the Iraqi middleclass?

Nobody said it would be easy. In fact, all along Bush has said it will be a long hard road. Is the rule now that if it's difficult, it shouldn't be done? As to who is the middle class - you have only to look at Iraq to see the large middle class. People with jobs, shops, cars etc - not mud huts and sandals.



So you belong to those that don't watch TV and never read a newspaper etc.? That must be the reason why you lack knowledge and confuse things. It didn't take years to bring democracy back to fruition in Germany. There was no resistance against the occupation, once the war was over. People were fed up with fighting. For instance, the Germans didn't consider the Allies as infidels.

Surely you're not serious. You don't think the Germans thought of the Allies as inferior? Wasn't that the entire point of Hitler's ethnic purity doctrine? If I remember right, the entire reich was dotted with these camps devoted to killing the inferior. As far as your statement about "It didn't take years to bring democracy back to fruition in Germany" - in fact it took 4 years. That's about 3 years longer than Iraq has had. As to the "peaceful occupation" of Germany, maybe you should read up on the German partisan Werewolf bands? All was not sweetness and light in postwar Germany. Maybe you should reasses who "confuses things"?


True, but this is only another proof, that those two situations (and countries) can't be compared. With the Germans (and Japan) the war was tough and bloody, but the occupation was peaceful. In Iraq it's just the other way around - the war was short with almost no losses and no resistance, but "peace" is bloody. It just doesn't make sense to compare Iraq and Germany (/Japan) - no matter how often a member of the US-government mentions it.

Almost no losses? What? Have you read the figures of Iraqi dead? Coalition losses were low, but the Iraqis had their asses handed to them. And again - where are you getting this "peaceful occupation" myth from?


These groups can only coexist and prosper because of a democracy and not in spite of a democracy. You can hardly compare that with religious groups that share an old tradition of enmity and have never lived under the roof of democracy...

Ah, so it's the geography that makes the difference. Or is it just skin color that makes democracy work differently? White people in America are smart and can get along, but the brown skinned people of Iraq are to ignorant to put aside their differences? What makes the Iraqis so uniqely unable to get along? I have high hopes for them - and believe they have high hopes for themselves. Don't sell them short.

[Tane Angle]

In regards to the Kurds, it would seem most unwise to turn our backs on them. They could make potent enemies, and we don't really need any more enemies right now. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[mrfloppy]

Well, we may be getting a bit off topic now...


Did you even bother to read my post?

Yes, that's why I responded.


Nobody said it would be easy. In fact, all along Bush has said it will be a long hard road. Is the rule now that if it's difficult, it shouldn't be done? As to who is the middle class - you have only to look at Iraq to see the large middle class. People with jobs, shops, cars etc - not mud huts and sandals.

I didn't say it shouldn't be done. Your "carrot and stick"-theory is just too simple. Your so-called middleclass still mainly consists of those who benefitted from Saddam's regime, while the shiite majority isn't really a part of that middleclass. Jobs, shops and cars are not a sign of a middleclass, but of a certain degree of civilisation and I never disputed that Iraq was/is a civilised country.


You don't think the Germans thought of the Allies as inferior?

First of all, it was the Nazis, and not all Germans in general, secondly the racism was mainly directed against Jews and Slavic people. In fact, fraternisation was perceived to be a bigger problem for the allied authorities than German feelings of racial superiority.


As far as your statement about "It didn't take years to bring democracy back to fruition in Germany" - in fact it took 4 years. That's about 3 years longer than Iraq has had.

Yes, it took 4 years, before the German Republic was constituted, but the allied authorities took great effort in keeping a German administration on every possible level. The way to democracy has never seriously been questioned by the Germans. They never demanded the Allies' withdrawal to establish some regime of their own liking.

[/quote]As to the "peaceful occupation" of Germany, maybe you should read up on the German partisan Werewolf bands? All was not sweetness and light in postwar Germany. Maybe you should reasses who "confuses things"?


Too much "Condy" and "Rummy" here. The "Werwölfe" never managed to pose any serious threat to the Allies or the Germans themselves. They have never been endorsed by the population and didn't inflict serious losses or damage to the infrastructure. They have never hampered Germany's postwar development. Read some books (e.g. Werewolf! by Perry Biddiscombe).

[quote]Almost no losses? What? Have you read the figures of Iraqi dead? Coalition losses were low, but the Iraqis had their asses handed to them. And again - where are you getting this "peaceful occupation" myth from?

I was referring to allied losses in WWII vs. Coalition losses in GWII, during and after the war. It's not a myth, it's a fact that after German surrender on May, 7th/9th, 1945, there has never been a major uprising against the Allies, which could by any means be compared to the present situation in Iraq. Hence "peaceful occupation". Perhaps you should try to read a good history book every now and then.


Ah, so it's the geography that makes the difference. Or is it just skin color that makes democracy work differently? White people in America are smart and can get along, but the brown skinned people of Iraq are to ignorant to put aside their differences? What makes the Iraqis so uniqely unable to get along? I have high hopes for them - and believe they have high hopes for themselves. Don't sell them short.

Neither did I mention geography, nor did I mention the colour of skin or any other racial bullsh*t. The differences between Sunnis and Shiites have a bloody tradition. In addition to that, there's a kurdish minority (though not being a religious group on their own), which also expects to be granted certain rights. This does not inhibit democracy, but it makes things more complicated. The religious difference between occupants and occupied is another obstacle to confiding cooperation.

I never said, that democracy is not a viable option for Iraq but i do disagree with the attempt to simplify the Iraqi situation by comparing it to post-war Germany!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I never said, that democracy is not a viable option for Iraq but i do disagree with the attempt to simplify the Iraqi situation by comparing it to post-war Germany!

Fair enough - we'll have to agree to disagree (that should go into the oxymoron thread in off-topic :) ). To be sure, postwar Germany & postwar Iraq are very different places (and times) - but I don't believe they're so different that they can't be compared. I think that perhaps you, and others, have unreasonable expectations and imaginary timetables based on a false impression of postwar Germany.

Also, every single attack, loss etc. is covered to death now, leading to the perception -not reality- that the Iraqi population is at odds with our goals. If you ask somebody off the street what the situation on the ground in Iraq is, they'll likely tell you that it's a godawful quagmire etc., which is simply not the case. The majority of Iraqis, like the majority of postwar Germans, simply want to get on with their lives, run their shops, make money and raise their kids.

The postwar occupation of Germany was not covered in such detail. There weren't live video feeds available 24/7. Minor attacks went unreported. If current news technology was available then, we would have an entirely different picture of the occupation then. Censorship was widespread (although there still is some censorship in place currently as well). Germany would be seen as a similar "boondoggle", "quagmire", "hornet's nest", or my favorite "another Vietnam" as the press loves to call it.

Such counter-productive statements & reporting would never have been tolerated in the WWII era. Thus, we have an overly simplified view of the occupation.

If we were to apply the same standards we now use to judge the occupation - Germany would have to be viewed as a similar "failure". A year and a half after the war ended, there were still attacks on our people, we were still stuck there as occupiers - and there was still no government in place. Germany is another Vietnam! How long have we had troops stationed in Germany - 60 years? 60 years!! How about Korea - 50 years. All this nonsense about Iraq ...a frickin' year and a half after the war is just total BS. If Iraq is still a mess like this in 2008, I'll listen to complaints.

[mrfloppy]

Ok, so we'll settle this by agreeing on disagreement. I didn't expect to convince you of my point of view, anyway. ;)

[/quote]I think that perhaps you, and others, have unreasonable expectations and imaginary timetables based on a false impression of postwar Germany.


No, as I said - Iraq can't be compared with Germany. Therefore at least I can say that I never had any expectations based on postwar Germany. On the contrary; the point that I was trying to make, was that one cannot transfer the post-WWII situation to Iraq and therefore cannot deduce any expectations and timetables, at all. Each are, more or less, unique situations and therefore have to be looked at separately.

[quote]...The postwar occupation of Germany was not covered in such detail....

That's not true. There's hundreds of articles, essays and books about postwar Germany - and there are still many people left, that lived in those days. It's very unfair to allege that the situation just lacked sufficient media coverage to be called a quagmire as well. That's just plain nonsense!

Just one last thing - I hope you know, that the US Forces didn't have to stay in Germany for 60 years because of the Germans, but because of the Cold War, for most of the time.

[SOG]

@tane angel and red

As for budanski, there is nothing "excellent" about him. While the Kurds may have helt elections by now, you probably forgot that they didn't need the invasion of Iraq. From the late nineties on they had there own little state, free of Saddam.
This independance (they were economic quite prospering, too, albeit through smuggling ;) ) was not bettered in anyway by OIF.
So there is no justification to declare it a success because of the present Kurd situtation.

the kurds free state and non harrasment was afforded to them through the coalitions no fly and bordered gaurd zone. saddam did not magically leave them alone, they were protected by america and the coalition after the gulf war and were afforded more freedom and liberty as you said "in the late nineties" . and of course we have reports stating postwar/pre war the number of kurd children passing away under the coalition was significantly less than that of saddam. and also as you put it, the shiite uprising was non successfull because we did not back it, we stupidly encouraged it, saddam still easily had the means to mass murder them. the kurd "yoke casting" was successfull because the coalition was sitting on the border, the kurds were working with US special forces, and protected by US forces. NONE of saddams forces liked going near the coalition backed kurd border.