civil war in iraq...

[fushigi]

Well, it seems this thread has divagated from its original course. However, I have a few thoughts on the probability of civil war in Iraq.

Nothing binds feuding groups together better than a common enemy, but those binds loosen quickly when the enemy evaporates. The mujahadeen in Afghanistan started against the puppet regime installed by the Soviet occupiers, but fell apart after the Soviets withdrew and the regime crumbled. Ethnic groups got along just fine in Yugoslavia under Tito's iron fist, but when he died and the USSR fell apart, all hell broke loose.

I see a common strand in Iraq. Just substitute Kurds for Kosovars, Sunnis for Bosniaks, Shias for Pashtuns and so forth. Once there is no occupation army, unless there is a significant amount of sustainable development (to give potential combatants something to do besides kill each other) civil war is a good possibility. Legitimate authority must be established somehow.

[Scribbler1]

I think you're right. If the objective was to democratize Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein then Bush neglected the little detail that these people were not ALLOWED to cause old Saddam any headaches. But then again I believe his "compassion" for the poor Iraqi's will evaporate as soon as he gets whatever he REALLY wants out of this.
I think the only "legitimate" authority possible is a puppet government that wants us to stay there. The Iraqis will never handle a new democracy, especially when they have no memory of ever having one.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 You show quite nicely that morals or ethics don't belong in your brand of politics. I don't need to read any more to conclude you and I are too far apart to agree on any of this. I'm quite confortable with my beliefs and I leave you to yours.

#1
Morality and Ethics have never been a part of politics. Other sides do the same and lie equally (or better) to gain some profits as well.
You are correct :-)))
#2
Every-sigle person has its own opinion.
I believe that one day you realize that if you do not control others, you are going to rely on their mercy or finally decide to stand on your own.

If you think U.S. can stand higher prices for oil, then kindly turn the electricity off. :-)))
I bet that you understand very quickly the meaning and power of the oil, which supplies us ALL with energy, every-single day and night.

[Scribbler1]

As was pointed out, we have sidetracked this thrtead so I'll not be posting on our side argument any longer. If you want to start a new thread, fine. But not on this one.
I'll say this for you though, although I believe you and bush pretty much think in sync on the subject of politics, between you and he you are by far the most honest.
I couldn't disagree with you more but I do appreciate your honesty, misguided as it may be.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: fushigi Nothing binds feuding groups together better than a common enemy, but those binds loosen quickly when the enemy evaporates. The mujahadeen in Afghanistan started against the puppet regime installed by the Soviet occupiers, but fell apart after the Soviets withdrew and the regime crumbled. Ethnic groups got along just fine in Yugoslavia under Tito's iron fist, but when he died and the USSR fell apart, all hell broke loose. I see a common strand in Iraq. Just substitute Kurds for Kosovars, Sunnis for Bosniaks, Shias for Pashtuns and so forth. Once there is no occupation army, unless there is a significant amount of sustainable development (to give potential combatants something to do besides kill each other) civil war is a good possibility. Legitimate authority must be established somehow.

That is quite a very good summary for this topic.
A group stands united as long as shares the same goal, common interests, under a threat, ect. (These are the basics for sociology, as a matter of fact).
Unless there is a creative and leading body (within that group), the chaos dominates along with lawlessness, social and cultural degradation, technological regress, ect.
A stagnacy fluorishes widely all over a state, in its almost every field.

That is why U.S. needs to stay in Iraq and prevent such events that may take place (ever), and especially a civil war.

[rmnunez]

So tyrants who effectively suppress discrete ethnic opposition ought to be left alone since ousting them could lead to ethnic strife?

[fushigi]

Quote by: rmnunez So tyrants who effectively suppress discrete ethnic opposition ought to be left alone since ousting them could lead to ethnic strife?

Afraid so. Take a look at 16th century British history. Henry VIII wasn't exactly Nelson Mandela. Opposition was dealt with by means of the Star Chamber, thumb screws, stake burnings, and beheadings. Not unlike Saudi Arabia today. But it kept the civil wars from happening for a long, long time. In fact, until the legitimate authority was replaced by Scotch interlopers with male lovers.

The point is, the most crucial element a country needs for political development is time, and a regular, predictable routine. I look at sustainable development as a pyramid that can only be built layer by layer. The bottom layer is security. The next, a legitimate and persistant government. The next, economic development. Then you can think about political development: elections, a reliable legal system, independent civic groups. Until you have that solid foundation, there will be armed conflict - one episode after another - while the most recent Johnny-come-lately group tries its hand at winning the government. Hate to say it, but China and Iran will probably have democratic governments before you see one in places like Haiti, Sierra Leone, Burma, or Afghanistan, where political development was attempted before the full consolidation of the state and any significant economic development took place. In fact, Afghanistan would probably have democratized sooner under the Taleban than under the occupation forces, whose efforts are almost entirely restricted to Kabul and have very little legitimacy. So yes, bring us a tyrant, so long as he's the tyrant who can hold things together long enough for the pyramid to grow.

And yes, Rainbow, that means I agree. The U.S. needs to be that tyrant in Iraq for a long time if we really want to see democracy there. In that country's case, call me around 2050 and we'll talk.

[Nono]

fushigi, do you think it would be possible to dismantle the Iraq confection and start over with the constituent parts?
Or what with Saddam's transmigration schemes and what-not would that be too messy?

[rmnunez]

Fushigli, though political development may take time, I do think modern communications and other developments have accelerated things since the days of Henry VIIIth. Its not instantaneous yet, but remarkable changes can be effected with brevity. Spain was a fine dictatorship for decades, then suddenly became a constitutional monarchy, had a hand at socialism, a coup attempt, communist experiements, social democracy and now democracy seems quite natural there. It didn't take decades for Germany and Japan to transit to democracy. All over Latin America former dictatorships succumbed to democracy and have progressed in this fashion just a few years later. South Africa is another good example of rapid and effective transition from tyrannny too. Development is a process requiring stability, but this shouldn't be something uncertain for decades of transitioning, the oppressed demand improvement sooner.

I don't think ethnic repression should ever be allowed to be discrete, but if it is, wouldn't think that makes it any more tolerable. I would rather have witnessed the liberation of Kosovo than have seen the world's powers sit that one out with a Slobo endowed with Titoesque authority assuring us all there was nothing amiss while keeping the former Yugoslavia from dismemberment under a vice-like grip.

[Nono]

True to a degree. Germany had benefited from the European Renaissance, as had Spain to a lesser extent. But I wouldn't hold my breath regarding the other places you mention, including Japan, and including Mexico for that matter. Elections alone don't make a democracy, as everyone has been pointing out re Iraq. Democracy is something that has to mature in the culture, take root in the public mind. And it always remains fragile.
It doesn't need hundreds of years, but it doesn't happen overnight either.

I hope the Iraqis can make a go of it, but I ain't bettin. The edifice needs a firmer foundation than sand.

[allen]

Economical development is the decisive factor: it drives political development and is served by political development. Without a necessary economical foundation, a premature democratization will be unsuccessful, and sometimes cause disasters.

For a poor country, democracy is cancer.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: allen Economical development is the decisive factor: it drives political development and is served by political development. Without a necessary economical foundation, a premature democratization will be unsuccessful, and sometimes cause disasters. For a poor country, democracy is cancer.

Really? India was notably poor for perhaps the first 45 years of it's democracy, only recently beginning to create wealth in large amounts. India has also been a particularly stable democracy. Before Ireland joined the European Economic Community, it was also poor, yet it's democracy was stable. Costa Rica has never been considered wealthy, but it's had a democracy for a long time now.

I understand where your coming from, but I don't believe that democracy is inherently dangerous to a poor country.

[Nono]

Quote by: allen For a poor country, democracy is cancer.

I know what you mean, but each case is different. I was recently in Senegal for a short while. It's poor, by our standards, certainly poorer by most measures than Iraq. But it's both more democratic and economically better off than its neighbours, and that's probably no coincidence.

Iraq is an artificially bordered, explosive sectarian/ethnic cocktail. So are most black African countries. It could be argued that a real democracy -- with its demand for tolerance -- places too much strain on such brittle constructs. Ethnic harmony seems to me more important than economic wealth, though poverty in an ethnically tense situation obviously doesn't help any.

Senegalese society is relatively homogeneous ethnically and religiously. That's gotta be a big factor.

[fushigi]

Quote by: rmnunez Fushigli, though political development may take time, I do think modern communications and other developments have accelerated things since the days of Henry VIIIth.

Completely agree. The UNDP has said for years that technology can help developing countries "skip steps" in their advancement. But time is needed for the government to consolidate its authority. It must be considered legitimate in the minds of would-be combatants, or at least powerful enough to generate a sufficient amount of fear and respect in the minds of would-be combatants.

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think ethnic repression should ever be allowed to be discrete, but if it is, wouldn't think that makes it any more tolerable. I would rather have witnessed the liberation of Kosovo than have seen the world's powers sit that one out with a Slobo endowed with Titoesque authority assuring us all there was nothing amiss while keeping the former Yugoslavia from dismemberment under a vice-like grip.

Again, I agree with you. Ethnic cleansing should not be permitted. But the invading force that prevents it must have the will to stay long enough to get the new regime on its feet. The Balkans was a botch-job from the start because Clinton didn't have the balls to send in ground forces immediately. The worst thing NATO, blue helmet forces, or coalitions can do is go in, stir up trouble, then leave before a legitimate government reigns. Take Vietnam, for example.

That's why the occupation forces need to stay in Iraq - if political stability truly is our mission there.

[rmnunez]

Fushigi, though ethnic cleansing should not be tolerated, until recently it generally has been. Technically even genocide is okay as long as it does not result in threats to international peace and security. Until Yugoslavia the rule was that unless the floods of refugees overwhelmed neighbors, their could be no justification to use force to restrain or stop the atrocities.

After Yugoslavia it was argued one could claim a humanitarian exception to the Charter preclusion on use of force. This was not apparent in the Rwandan case and only somewhat evident in Timor.

Ethnic repression in Iraq did cause displacement, though I'm not sure we could say the Kurdish refugees "overwhelmend" neighbors (particularly Turkey).

[allen]

Quote by: G. Adams Really? India was notably poor for perhaps the first 45 years of it's democracy, only recently beginning to create wealth in large amounts. India has also been a particularly stable democracy. Before Ireland joined the European Economic Community, it was also poor, yet it's democracy was stable. Costa Rica has never been considered wealthy, but it's had a democracy for a long time now. I understand where your coming from, but I don't believe that democracy is inherently dangerous to a poor country.

For India, its unstoppable population growth can be thought as some kind of cancer ... probably a cancer of the world. Ireland could not be taken as a poor country, as far as I know. I don't think Costa Rica is a normal country ...

Look at Russia, once a superpower in the world, has been sick since it switched to democracy...

Thanks for remembering me, G.Adams. Did you check the history book last time?

[allen]

Quote by: Nono I know what you mean, but each case is different. I was recently in Senegal for a short while. It's poor, by our standards, certainly poorer by most measures than Iraq. But it's both more democratic and economically better off than its neighbours, and that's probably no coincidence.

Generally speaking, in a poor country, people are not politically mature enough for democracy. For a small, poor and democratic country, a rich foreign power can easily buy enough ballots for a specific candidate. For a big, poor and democratic country, a power foreign power can easily "defeat" a specific candidate by propagating rumors. Of course, if you are a close friend of the superpower, it is a different story.

As to Iraq, if US really wants to make it an successful example of democracy, focus on the economy and make Iraqis rich.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: allen For India, its unstoppable population growth can be thought as some kind of cancer ... probably a cancer of the world. Ireland could not be taken as a poor country, as far as I know. I don't think Costa Rica is a normal country ... Look at Russia, once a superpower in the world, has been sick since it switched to democracy... Thanks for remembering me, G.Adams. Did you check the history book last time?

It's unstoppable population growth isn't a cancer, it will moderate itself in time, you remember your science lessons and the food chain? If a population grows too large to support itself, it will inevitably collapse. It's just something that will happen, it will be dealt with in time.

Ireland couldn't be considered poor? Why, because it's in western Europe? Trust me, prior to joining the EU it was like fascist Portugal, only wetter.

Why isn't Costa Rice a normal country? Because you have no way to back up your thesis in light of it?

Russia was sick under Communism in its late stages. Massive problems regarding supplying basics. I agree Russia was better off under communism, but thats only because how bad it is now. However the problems Russia now suffers are not down to democracy, but to the way in which in converted to a capitalist economy. Dishing out the countries resources to friends of the government and ex-party members, for example.

Thanks for remembering you, and did I check the history books...what the hell are you trying to say? All I'm saying is that democracy is not, by it's nature alone, a bane to poor countries. It is additional problems that poor countries are susceptible to that make it problematic, such as increased ethnic or religious tensions.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: allen Generally speaking, in a poor country, people are not politically mature enough for democracy. For a small, poor and democratic country, a rich foreign power can easily buy enough ballots for a specific candidate. For a big, poor and democratic country, a power foreign power can easily "defeat" a specific candidate by propagating rumors. Of course, if you are a close friend of the superpower, it is a different story. As to Iraq, if US really wants to make it an successful example of democracy, focus on the economy and make Iraqis rich.

Most people are politically immature in many rich countries as well, and rich countries are equally at risk of having wealthy groups or individuals buying votes, as Mr. Bush has so usefully illustrated.

[rmnunez]

Sure, economic development is necessary, an infrastructure, prosperous environment, productive activity and with more basic needs met people can broaden their scope of aims to include good government. Abrupt and dislocated wealth usually results in corruption, but I think its more like a development "stage" governments go through, eventually they move out of this into more conventional distributive systems with taxes collected, job generated and goods traded.

When people have basic needs covered (water, food, clothing, shelter and the means to retain them) they turn to things like being able to get these basics covered easier for longer. Then government and the atractions of it when it is genuinely representative are (or should be) more appealing. I think the idea is best reflected in the philosophy behind the Marshall Plan.