Thread: Can Iraqis Keep Their Republic?

November 17, 2006
Can the Iraqis Keep Their Republic?

By Charles Krauthammer

"A republic, if you can keep it."-- Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

WASHINGTON -- We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil. Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: depose Saddam and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.
The first was relatively easy. But Iraq's first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.

The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects or militia leaders.

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists'' imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the last several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Saddam's totalitarianism.

What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance.

Last month, American soldiers captured a Mahdi Army death squad leader in Baghdad -- only to be forced to turn him loose on order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two weeks ago, we were ordered, again by Maliki, to take down the barricades we had established around Sadr City in search of another notorious death squad leader and a missing American soldier.

This is no way to conduct a war. The Maliki government is a failure. It is beholden to a coalition dominated by two Shiite religious parties, each armed and ambitious, at odds with each other and with the ultimate aim of a stable, modern, democratic regime.

Is this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election. The U.S. was not going to replace Saddam with another tyrant. We were trying to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the one conceivable antidote to extremism and terror -- and, in a country that is nearly two-thirds Shiite, that inevitably meant Shiite domination. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.

Fortunately, however, the ruling Shiites do not have much internal cohesion. Just last month, two of the major Shiite religious parties that underpin the Maliki government engaged in savage combat against each other in Amara.

There is a glimmer of hope in this breakdown of the Shiite front. The unitary Shiite government having been proved such a failure, we should be encouraging the full breakup of the Shiite front in pursuit of a new coalition based on cross-sectarian alliances: the more moderate Shiite elements (secular and religious but excluding the poisonous Sadr), the Kurds, and those Sunnis who recognize their minority status but are willing to accept an important, generously offered place at the table.

Such a coalition was almost created after the latest Iraqi elections. It needs to be attempted again. One can tinker with American tactics or troop levels from today until doomsday. But unless the Iraqis can put together a government of unitary purpose and resolute action, the simple objective of this war -- to leave behind a self-sustaining democratic government -- is not attainable.

Instead of troop levels and redeployment being the main topic of debate, and realizing that failure in Iraq is not an option, I think we should be answering the fundamental question--What can/do we do about the failure known as The Maliki Government? Thoughts?

Well you are correct the government that is in place is ineffective. I think the problem being that the population is not homogenious. We in the US durring our revolution atleast had commonality on our side. They have a coalition government. I was hoping that they would form some kind of strong government that was not afraid to break some eggs. If they can manage to hang Sadam in the street then maybe they can stem the sectarian violence there.

What a friggin Joke... for us to totally tear a country to pieces, then blame the failures on the people... America is a narcissist country.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

What a friggin Joke... for us to totally tear a country to pieces, then blame the failures on the people... America is a narcissist country.

America should shoulder the blame when a Sunni bombs a Shia store? America should shoulder the blame when Shia's take Sunni's off a bus, kill them, then dump their tortured bodies in the Tigres? Your part of the far left "blame america" crowd that offers nothing but unamerican propaganda.

BTW are you still a MOD?

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

November 17, 2006
Can the Iraqis Keep Their Republic?

By Charles Krauthammer

"A republic, if you can keep it."-- Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

WASHINGTON -- We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil.
I wouldn't say it was flattery I think i would give you that award as well
onky joking
Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

The problem may not stem from America but why do some believe that the Solution has to stem from America? Because there is no doubt that the solution will be an American solution, and not one best for the people living there.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

first two i think, along with actually invading

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters,

Do you shoot looters in the states?? are police allowed to shoot criminals in the US even when not in self defence??? No?? then why is it right in Iraq??
not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, [/quote]
You mean a government who would be seen as an American puppet.. do you think that would get the full support of the people??

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.

You mean they believe in different beliefs to you and seeing as your trying to force your beliefs on them they are resisting?? You can't force Democracy on societies that are neither willing, nor ready for it, I say the blame lies with us for trying.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: depose Saddam and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

see above, America has no right toppling dictators and causing havoc..

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

The first was relatively easy. But Iraq's first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.

What more can you expect from a Government given no real power and with occupation forces that they cannot afford to oust??

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects or militia leaders.

Yes, this is true.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists'' imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the last several decades.

This IMO is a problem, the wish of Some for a global domination of Democracy. I believe Democracy is the best Political system for the countries that use it but it doesn't work everywhere and to add to that to force Democracy on other countries is not only wrong, but also perverts the very system you are trying to give them. I hate "the campaign of Democracy" to me Democracy being used in this way is as bad as dictators,facists etc.

But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Saddam's totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance.

Yes, at least we understand their standpoints.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Last month, American soldiers captured a Mahdi Army death squad leader in Baghdad -- only to be forced to turn him loose on order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two weeks ago, we were ordered, again by Maliki, to take down the barricades we had established around Sadr City in search of another notorious death squad leader and a missing American soldier.

It is their right to demand that, it is their country after all.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

This is no way to conduct a war. The Maliki government is a failure. It is beholden to a coalition dominated by two Shiite religious parties, each armed and ambitious, at odds with each other and with the ultimate aim of a stable, modern, democratic regime.

Is this not Democracy though?? Democracy is all about opposition. But still Iraq was not ready for democracy.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Is this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election. The U.S. was not going to replace Saddam with another tyrant. We were trying to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the one conceivable antidote to extremism and terror -- and, in a country that is nearly two-thirds Shiite, that inevitably meant Shiite domination. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.

see above, i've said it too many times before, the mistake was America's for trying to "plant" democracy there in the 1st place.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Such a coalition was almost created after the latest Iraqi elections. It needs to be attempted again. One can tinker with American tactics or troop levels from today until doomsday. But unless the Iraqis can put together a government of unitary purpose and resolute action, the simple objective of this war -- to leave behind a self-sustaining democratic government -- is not attainable.

So you would support tinkering and influencing the Democracy there so that infact, it is no longer Democracy. This is perversion of the very thing your trying to create. This is why it will not work ^^

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Instead of troop levels and redeployment being the main topic of debate, and realizing that failure in Iraq is not an option, I think we should be answering the fundamental question--What can/do we do about the failure known as The Maliki Government? Thoughts?

Nothing, the more we try to influence the situation, the worse it will get and the less Democratic it will get.

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

America should shoulder the blame when a Sunni bombs a Shia store? America should shoulder the blame when Shia's take Sunni's off a bus, kill them, then dump their tortured bodies in the Tigres?

Did this sort of thing happen before the "glourious liberators" came??
and the deaths that Saddam caused.. did it happen everyday???

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

Your part of the far left "blame america" crowd that offers nothing but unamerican propaganda.

Sounds better than the far right "america is perfect and should rule the world crowd ^^

[quote=POLITICAL JEDI;63369]America should shoulder the blame when a Sunni bombs a Shia store? America should shoulder the blame when Shia's take Sunni's off a bus, kill them, then dump their tortured bodies in the Tigres? Your part of the far left "blame america" crowd that offers nothing but unamerican propaganda.

BTW are you still a MOD?[/quote]

Nope, gave it up... too much political correctness.. BTW, why aren't you banned anymore? Welcome back! ~inky

[quote=Inkslinger;63373]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

America should shoulder the blame when a Sunni bombs a Shia store? America should shoulder the blame when Shia's take Sunni's off a bus, kill them, then dump their tortured bodies in the Tigres? Your part of the far left "blame america" crowd that offers nothing but unamerican propaganda.

BTW are you still a MOD?[/quote]

Nope, gave it up... too much political correctness.. BTW, why aren't you banned anymore? Welcome back! ~inky

I never got banned! I just couldn't take this place anymore! I had to move on to better forum sites where forward thinking people put up good thought provoking debate. There were to many jokers like Roach posting who couldn't find his ass with 2 hands and a flashlight!

[quote=POLITICAL JEDI;63382]

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

I never got banned! I just couldn't take this place anymore! I had to move on to better forum sites where forward thinking people put up good thought provoking debate. There were to many jokers like Roach posting who couldn't find his ass with 2 hands and a flashlight!

Try the other one political Jedi.. its got bells on
we all know you found somewhere where everyone agreed with your right wing views ^^. i imagine life was so much easier when you could all sing the national anthem and have some apple pie and generally talk about killing innocent people in the name of Democracy as being a good thing

Your inability to find arguments against mine and to simply to resort to name calling (already) creates all the image i need of you . thanks for a laugh though.

Originally Posted by Roach

You mean a government who would be seen as an American puppet.. do you think that would get the full support of the people??

Yea thats what I mean. We should've put a pro-american government in there. A government that has our interest and our values along with the interest of ALL Iraqis--Let that ride for awhile, then hold fair and free elections. Who gives a shit if the people supported it? They would have to roll with it or success and modernity, 2 fabrics that usually accompany a democracy, would have to roll right over them. Forcefully if necessary!

You mean they believe in different beliefs to you and seeing as your trying to force your beliefs on them they are resisting?? You can't force Democracy on societies that are neither willing, nor ready for it, I say the blame lies with us for trying.

See this is what I mean when I say you don't know shit and couldn't find your ass with 2 hands and a flashlight. Nobody forced them to do shit! 12 million went braved death to go to the polls and vote under their own free will. NOBODY FORCED THEM!

And your wrong, the new site I found has lots of liberals, they just happen to be of the moderate type and not the Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore type that you obviously rep.