Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

Just a quick promp, I'll make a response later.

Not until recently have we spoken about nation-building as though we assume the regime we will be building is a democracy. Is this still the case? Is it possible for a country like the United States to make the terms anything but synonymous?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

in the case of Iraq, our rhetoric has always been that democracy is our aim there. I think they worry too much about ethnic self-determination, however. in order to have a representative republic, you don't have to have people in office who necessarily match yer demographic in order to get reasonable representation from them. that is one of the fallacies of the 20th century and ended in a great deal of loss of life.

think Yugoslavia

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

Was the point that the minorities wouldn't agree to anything unless they were guaranteed some power and the Shia wouldn't agree unless they knew that they were going to get over half the power? It seems to me that not worrying about would mean much less support for the introduction of democracy than there is, and without support it will fail. You might as well say that the Founding Fathers were too worried about state's rights.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

I don't say that the people of Iraq would agree with me, but I do say that some kind of representation and free and fair elections and stability and security maintained by such a consensual society is more important, I think, than an accurate level of corresponding demographic diversity and proportional representation would be if it lacked the ability to hold the country together in the short term. What we need is a freely elected government that behaves like a strongman but with a strong level of public support. Yeah, that's easy enough.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

But if it isn't a 'true' democracy, it looks like the word of the US means fuck all. Secondly, if it isn't what the people of Iraq, broadly speaking, want then it will have to be imposed upon them and that might be difficult, particularly given the reluctance of the US to deploy, say, another 80 000 troops (which was requested by people, including Paul Bremer, 18 months or so ago). The concerns about demographics reflect concerns amongst the population.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

vote muslim extremist in 2008!
aren't extremists always the minority? if they weren't, they wouldn't be "extreme". what i mean is, i doubt they will make it into government, but they still must be appeased if there is to be stability. or killed of course, but that option, though it has some popular support, doesn't usually work too well.
i'm not sure what i would suggest, though. it seems difficult to develop a perfect plan for establishing a democracy in an occupied highly-unstable historically-unsympathetic region in which you are fighting with extreme religious fundamentalist and militant nationalist (which i imagine is also the nation of islam) groups.

will peace or government come first? and, how?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

we have to kill all the extremists before they kill off all the moderates without making the remaining moderates too extreme from all this violence.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

they don't want to kill the people they condier moderates, by which i mean the people between them and you (AMERICA!), they want to kill the people you may be considering moderate, those leaning toward you. and you.
america, i mean. the actual moderates, those who have not chosen between them and you, don't matter much which is okay because there are probably only like 4 of them and will only be won over by nobody getting blown up anymore i bet.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: liquor store parking lot
Posts: 195

we'll all die of old age before a democracy in Iraq is fully fuinctional and/or fully accepted by the inhabitants. its easier to destroy a nation than build one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

dying of old age is what the long-term goal is in this instance

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: liquor store parking lot
Posts: 195

it would seem fit to think of the well being of all, but not in this case. we're dealing with opposites here... we might as well kill them all and start from scratch. i just don't see it being possible.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

either I've had enough beers that I didn't get the gist of that sentence, or you did.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: liquor store parking lot
Posts: 195

i like to post when drunk most of the time, depending on what time i am online. i don't even know what i was getting at. my best advice is to disregard anything i say and just nod your head.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

Mugtoe is alleged to be quite good at vigorous head-nodding, drunk or sober.

You want a peaceful trasnsition to democracy in Iraq, or elsewhere? Good fucking luck, if more than 3 people are involved. Especially if one or more religious insanities is part of the mix.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Den
Posts: 10979

I think they should go with a faux religious rule for now, like: "Here's your wise leader, sent from Allah to guide you out of anarchy into the glory of old."
Have him tell off Bush at some staged event, then have Bush go: "why yes, mr king of Iraq, we will withdraw immediately", and then fake the powershift as originally planned, just with awe instead of votes.

We need more pragmatism. Even if you told Iraqis now this was the plan, they would back it up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

yer both such curmudgeons

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

no pioneer spirit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

"We are not in the business of nation-building"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416

Nation-building--wading into someone else's mess.

What we are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan--cleaning up our own mess, eh?

Ipsofacto, we are not nation-building. (Not sure if that makes me feel any better...)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I'd say that it is nation-building whoever is to blame for the situation prior to the nationbuilding excitement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416

As Clinton said so aptly, it depends on what your definition of ....nation-building.... is...

The RNC Dictionary is very specific on this point.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I think that when Bush was campaigning on not going to get into nationbuilding, he was trying to convince people that he wouldn't be nationbuilding in the more commonly understood sense. Which is what he is now doing. Afghanistan would be understandable (and there isn't much nationbuilding going on in many ways, mostly it has just gone back to what it was before the taliban regardless of the election of Karzai), but Iraq was elective and isn't yet going as we would have liked. Let's hope that it does work out well in the end, but Bush is clearly involved in elective nation-building, for right or wrong, in Iraq.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416

Not continuing for ...argumentative purposes, so much, but don't you think Bush had reference to mission creep...You go into Africa with humanitarian notions, and get all intertwined in some unrecognizable, undefinable horror, which has no exit plan?
(The Powell Doctrine-- Overwhelming force with a clear mission, and exit plan.)

It seems so different to me than fixing what you blow up?
(The Powell Pottery Barn Doctrine--You break it; you fix it.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

The US isn't really 'fixing what it blew up' in Iraq. It is remaking the nation in a form that they think that will be more helpful to helping them achieve their long-term strategic aims. The nation wasn't 'broken' by the US in any simple sense. It was clear before the invasion that it (nationbuilding) would be required. People on this forum (including myself, who supported the war) were concerned, before the invasion even happened, about the paucity of postwar planning, particularly given that the postwar situation looked almost certain to be much more difficult than the actual invasion but recieved far less effort to plan. This was a particular concern given that the early days of the postwar would be the most important, thus the need to hit the ground running.

I'm not against nation-building, if it is well-planned and executed. My objection has been about incompetence, most particularly in planning, not the exercise itself.

Last edited by Smug Git on 12-04-2004 at 11:56 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged