Be careful of what you wish for

[Occhidiangela]

Let us suppose that Iraq as we know it now falls before an American led invasion, and that Saddam Hussein and his advisors, flunkies, aides, and hangers on are sent off either to Den Hague or to Lybia or other suitably 'liberal' Arab nation to pine away in exile and spend their Swiss bank account funds.

What then, for Iraq and her people? What then for the land of the Fertile Crescent, the land between the Two Rivers? Most importantly, what form of government will the people of Iraq adapt to carry them into the future?

Will it be a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' where another strong character rises to leadership after some election is sponsored by the US, the UN, or other multinational body of do-gooders takes place and puts the wrong guy in charge? Will the Caudillo return with a new name? Will Abouk Al Diem then become the latest problem for the region?

Will Iraq adopt a republican/representative form of government? Do they have the experience and depth to handle the bloody hard road that such a change would burden them with? Will 'Kurdistan' break free after yet more blood flows?

Who will try to influence their future? Besides the arrogant West, their neighbors will act to ensure that their new neighbor is one with whom they can live. It is in their interest to do so.

Let's have a look at who those folks are.

Turkey: a secular state made up mostly of Muslims. The Military, by the Turkish constitution, is the guarantor of the nation NOT reverting to the Caliphate or other Theocracy. Interesting difference to the American system, to say the least, or the severe civilian control of the military used by the Soviet system.

Iran: an Islamic republic

Syria: a Dictatorship

Jordan: a progressive Monarchy

Saudi Arabia: a Reactionary Monarchy

The rest of the Gulf States: Princedoms.

Since I contend that you cannot inflict democracy on people at the point of the bayonet, I have had to consider the most likely outcome is, given the substantial Shiite population in the south, that an Islamic Republic is the most likely form of government to evolve, simply because Islam is a common cultural assumption made by most Iraqi's, even if sects differ strongly in their views of the Koran's meaning, and because Iran would want their neighbor to be more like them, even if their neighbor is an Arab, vice a Persian, nation.

Other paths?

What royalty could be restored to Iraq, in this day and age, so that the Kings and Sheiks of the Arab world would welcome a brother aristrocrat back as a neighbor, whom they could then screw out of as much of his oil revenue as possible? :) And would The West put up with such a replacement to Saddam? I don't see that as a likely development, but am hoping someone here knows more about the old aristocratic families of Iraq, descendants of Faisal, who may be maneuvering to create a constitutional monarchy there post-Saddam

Back to the Islamic Republic of Iraq, the scenario most likely to come to pass.

A natural haven for old school, hard line muslims, the sort who Saddam has sent packing for years. A natural homeland for any number of folks like Abu Nidal or Al Quaeda who wish to pursue certain global goals.

A land less likely to make war on their neighbors, other than to support the fall of every royal family in the Persian Gulf to allow for the Islamic Republic, as a form of government, to spread all over the heartland of Islam.

In short, what sort of karmic judo is America about to experience when it is all over? I wonder.

Alternatively, Iraq could turn in the direction of Turkey, and given its ties to a lot of European and Western governments, that path is also likely, as well as one well backed by trading partners all over Europe, as well as economic ties to Turkey, as well as the US, and even Israel, whose relationship with Turkey continues to improve every year.

What I don't see happening is a "US style democracy" evolving. I am concerned that some people cling to that fantasy.

Having forced a change, for better or for worse, how likely is it that the US could repeat the Marshall Plan type approach that allowed us to convert our enemies into our allies and trading partners after WW II? Unlike then, ours are not the only banks with the capital to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. Too many others have the cash and a spoon in this stew. It, does not strike me as a realistic expectation of any post war Persian Gulf order to think that America will be seen as a liberator in the way the the French saw us in 1944/45.

So which will it be, and why?

A constitutional monarchy?
An Islamic Republic?
A Progressive Muslim State, ala Turkey?

The long term peace and stability of the Middle East rides on the outcome.

[Jarulf]

>What I don't see happening is a "US style
>democracy" evolving. I am concerned that some
>people cling to that fantasy.

Seems to me that part of those "some" are the american government.

>So which will it be, and why?
>
>A constitutional monarchy?
>An Islamic Republic?
>A Progressive Muslim State, ala Turkey?

I would pick neither and go for the chaos situation for quite a while (many, many years). Perhaps pesimistic but that is my guess. Alternatively we get back to som situation not that different from today.


>The long term peace and stability of the Middle East
>rides on the outcome.

That will definately not come just because USA and Great Britain invade Iraq to remove some non wanted leader/reguime (spelling?), on the contrary I would say. I would also guess that it might actually spread into other countries (war and such, not really USA/GB going to neigbours and so on) plus increased "terrorism" versus for example USA/GB. I am sure any response will be classified as terrorism and not war, but I guess that has been covered in other threads allready :)

[ShadowHM]

Alas, I fear that the most likely scenario is:

Will it be a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' where another strong character rises to leadership after some election is sponsored by the US, the UN, or other multinational body of do-gooders takes place and puts the wrong guy in charge?

And, of course, the 'true colours' of said New Boss will take a while to show up. Even a New Boss with good intentions is going to inherit an infrastructure of administration that is systematically corrupt. It will take super-human powers for any new leader to avoid the convenience of making the new rules stick "Because I said so!", and starting the whole cycle anew.

[Jonathon Spectre]

Mass-distribute copies of the United States Constitution in Arabic. Put a note on the front that says something like, "Adoption of this political structure will require your society to rapidly evolve beyond the 12th-century barbarism you and your neighbors are mired in. This is the best form of government that some of the greatest minds in history could create. You should try it out."

Do Iraqis care about Iraq? I really want to know.

JS
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

[Vash]

Mass-distribute copies of the United States Constitution in Arabic. Put a note on the front that says something like, "Adoption of this political structure will require your society to rapidly evolve beyond the 12th-century barbarism you and your neighbors are mired in. This is the best form of government that some of the greatest minds in history could create. You should try it out."

Do Iraqis care about Iraq? I really want to know.

JS
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

Wow. Just...wow.

[Roland]

Wow.  Just...wow.

Welcome to the Lounge. Hope you brought your portable bomb shelter. ;)

[Jester]

The question won't be "which will it be?"

The question will be "which will they be?"

That country is held together by spit, duct tape, and the Caudillismo (arabic chapter) of Saddam Hussein. If it wasn't, it would be at least two states, probably more. They also don't really like each other, especially in the Kurdish instance.

Plus, of course, you have all sorts of neighbours who want a sphere of influence, if not actual conquests. Turkey, for one, is very interested in the Kurds, and not like the French were interested in the Americans.

So, a government there would have some very real choices. Peace? Stability? Representation? Prosperity? Liberty? Cohesion? All of these things would require separate types of states; any prospective government would be lucky to get two of them covered, let alone all of them, which seems to be what the administration is promising. Cohesion is probably the hardest of them, since most people in the region don't like most other people, and the pan-Arabists are going to fight with the nationalists are going to fight with the Islamists, and they're all going to fight with anyone supporting a western-style democracy. How is this all going to stay together as one state or coalition without resorting to opression? My bet is that it can't.

When the administration says democracy, they mean the American model, as Mr. Spectre not-sarcastically pointed out. But that model relies on assumptions that are not only false in Iraq, they're VERY false. There must exist a certain range of conditions, a certain level of social development, and certain traditions. Any proceeding with the assumption that Iraq has these things, or can pick them up in a heartbeat, is going to be a diastrous failure, in my opinion.

Jester

[WarBlade]

Mass-distribute copies of the United States Constitution in Arabic. Put a note on the front that says something like, "Adoption of this political structure will require your society to rapidly evolve beyond the 12th-century barbarism you and your neighbors are mired in. This is the best form of government that some of the greatest minds in history could create. You should try it out."

Was this a joke? :unsure:
It's certainly not a funny one.

[ShadowHM]

"Adoption of this political structure will require your society to rapidly evolve beyond the 12th-century barbarism you and your neighbors are mired in. This is the best form of government that some of the greatest minds in history could create. You should try it out."

Yet another evangelical democrat !

And chauvinist evangelical democrat at that. PTOOEY

It took hundreds of years of effort by a remarkable number of people for democracy to evolve. The American version (you know, kind of like the King James version of the Bible) is but one way for democracy to work, and it took two hundred years for it to get to its present working form in the U.S.A.

And you think some mass-produced sheets of paper are going to inspire the Iraqi's to "rapidly evolve beyond the 12-century barbarism" they are (in your opinion) mired in?

Your contempt is showing, and it is not a pretty sight.

[Rhydderch Hael]

"Shields up, weapons online. No shields? Well, buckle up..."

Iraq, amongst her neighbors, have a better chance at maintaining a more secular form of government. I never bought into the government propoganda that Saddam is hoping to crush the Western world with Islamic fundamentalism, due to the fact that the things we Americans are holding the guy over a barrel for (missiles and WMD) are the products of a secular government's R&D—not something I'd associate with a bunch of reactionary clerics wanting to maintain a society a few notches above medievalism.

[Occhidiangela]

Saddam, for all of his strong arm practices, is a modernist, secularist Arab, not a reactionary like, say, Osama Bin Ladin or his relative, the King of Saudi Arabia.

What I have no real feel for is how widespread his PoV is in Iraq. I do know that he has, like Khadafi, done his share to supress fundamentalists in his country. Once he and his core supporters are gone, will that create an environment conducive to the less progressive sorts being able to steer Iraqi society toward a more fundamentalist direction?

The response to Future SHock varies from place to place. I wonder if modern Iraqi society has, by the brute force of a generation of having had to do so, weaned itself from the Koran and the Sharia as The Law? Iran presents a compelling model for the backlash to medeival modes of social reaction when the modernists are thrown out.

What I am sure will not happen is a whole bunch of folks gathering around, holding hands and singing "kumbaya."

See Yugoslavia for a more likely model of post strongman social upheaval, as Jarulf suggests.

[Occhidiangela]

But it is warranted.

The very large movement out there that is filled with old school Muslim sentiment is exactly what he paints it as: a yearning to revert to a bloody medeival social mode.

The West can't have it both ways. Either it means what it says, and is not going to put up with women as property in Muslim nations, or it is going to STFU on that front and accept the baggage with the message of the Koran, and let those cultures mature on their own or revert to medeival darkness.

I have nothing but contempt for the fundamentalists: be they Muslim or Christian. Their path is the path of the Borgia popes and the slave markets of Algiers.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . destabalizes the region is as real now as it was in 1991 when Pres Bush, the elder, in consultation with his regional allies, chose not to risk further destabalization than was already risked by the war in the first place.

You make a good point: in the short term, greater destabalizing forces could be unleashed.

[FoxBat]

Was this a joke? :unsure:
It's certainly not a funny one.

Despite the other responses, I thought it was. I found it a bit amusing myself.

If it's not, well, it's a piece of self-satire. No need to add to it ;)

[Occhidiangela]

1. The Kurd issue is tied to more than the Kurds of Iraq, it is also tied to Iran and Turkey. The Kurds are, of course, as much into each others knickers as they are chaffing at the Irani/Turkish/Iraqi bit.

2. Faisal's realm, granted by Balfourl et a were I suppose lines on a map that may be as moveable as the lines within Yugoslavia, whose borders were also a gift of the Verseilles process.

So maybe I really asked the wrong question, as you suggest.

Is there an Iraq after Saddam leaves? Different question, with far different consequences for the Persian Gulf region.

How tied to the lines on the map is everyone, anyway? :)

[Jester]

I sure don't think so. The only models that can hold an area that diverse are confederations or empires. Confederations require consensus, and I'm damn near certain they won't make it far past open hostility, if at all. Empires are morally repugnant to the west, but at least they're possible. If we're willing to shelve all the talk about how wonderful democracy would be, and just stick in a new Hussein (or perhaps the Shah would be a better model), Iraq might stay together, but then this would remove all of the moral trappings from the war.

Or we could just let it disintegrate. And that might even work, except that every oil field would suddenly become everyone's holy land, and unless Kofi's got more diplomatic chops than anyone else in history, it's all going to go straight to the crapper.

In a sense, Saddam Hussein is the finger in the dyke; a powerful, charismatic figure whose strength holds back nationalists, whose secular views hold back Islamists, and whose power-hunger holds back Pan-arabists. That's the crux of the (sensible) anti-war movement; removing him opens a pandora's box, and would constitute the greater evil, not the lesser.

Jester

[AtomicKitKat]

Remove him and the evil genie of civil war, strife, and rioting will break loose, beating up everything in the immediate vicinity.

I originally thought of calling him a champagne cork, but decided the crap that would spew forth would make even the most "past due" champagne look like ambrosia.

[ShadowHM]

I have nothing but contempt for the fundamentalists: be they Muslim or Christian.  Their path is the path of the Borgia popes and the slave markets of Algiers.

I disagree. Your contempt reveals some unwarranted assumptions about how 'progressive' you seem to think we are.

Last I checked, the E.R.A. doesn't apply to women in the good old U.S. of A.

Women only became 'persons' in Canada in 1927.

We don't have to go back to "medieval darkness' to find some truly horrible examples on our own continent and in our own countries.

Secular Muslims, who are more numerous than you seem to think, do not view their women as property. The attraction of the fundamentalists, in many cases, is a reaction to what they see as imperialism from the West. You know.....that old pendulum thing that causes reactions to go overboard.

And I am starting to feel that our own blindness to the perils of democracy and our knee-jerk assumptions about how well it works are also unwarranted. Remember Pete's signature? "Democracy - a system where opinons are counted and not weighed." *

There may well be other systems of government that can and will work equally effectively, and still contain something like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Imposing a change from outside doesn't endear the change or the system to the hearts of those imposed on.

* My apologies to Pete if I mis-quoted.......I am sure the gist of it is right, if not the actual words.

[Occhidiangela]

Failed for a number of reasons, some being that a variety women who were not militant feminists were opposed to it, and little details like folks not wanting their daughters to be eligible for the draft. Your ERA reference is sadly based on quicksand.

Even without the ERA, women's role in American society, opportunities for self determination, and personal sovereignty are THE model for the rest of the modern world, including our lovely NATO allies. Woman have had suffrage for four generations now. If you want to see a truly hidebound society, try Italy. They have not reached our level changing the old norms yet . . .

Edit: By the way, the Fourteenth Ammendment covers the problem, with its provision for equal protection under the law. The number of acts and statutes that forbid discrimination are on the books and draw their authority from the Fourteenth Ammendment, as did the Civil Rights Act, as I understand it.

[ShadowHM]

Now address the other points I made, please.

Edit: (That will teach me to hit the reply button too fast, eh?) Since when did four generations get us back to medieval times and the Borgia Popes?