Post-War Iraq: How to Wage the Peace

[prontospyder]

Improving on Saddam?s rule will be easy. (Hint: Don?t gas people.) But democracy will take hard work. Don?t believe oil riches will make it easier. And above all, don?t rush it
Another interesting read from Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek:

Newsweek

Democracy:

Washington officials often say that American democracy is not necessarily the model for Iraq. Perhaps, but the central philosophy behind the American Constitution, a fear of concentrated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789. ?In framing a government,? wrote James Madison in Federalist No. 51, ?you must first enable ?the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.? Order, then liberty. In Iraq today, first establish a stable security environment and create the institutions of limited government?a constitution with a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, a sound central bank. Then and only then, move to full-fledged democracy.

Oil:

But perhaps the best approach is to create a national trust?with transparent and internationally monitored accounting?into which all oil revenues flow. These revenues could be spent only in specified ways: on, for example, health care and education. The World Bank has been experimenting on such a model with Chad, the tiny oil-rich African state. Alaska is another successful version of this model. Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation points out that Alaska distributes its oil revenues directly to its residents, bypassing the corruption usually created by leaving it in the hands of governments or oligarchs. This is a variation of land reform, redistributing wealth broadly, which was crucial in spurring democracy in Japan and almost all other feudal societies.

Issue of "colonialism":

And yet this is going to be called colonialism. The Iraqis who feel excluded from the new regime will level that charge instantly. Others in the Arab world who are threatened by the changes in Iraq will want Iraq to slip back into ?normalcy??which is to say dictatorship. The Saudi foreign minister called last week for an end to the ?occupation? of Iraq?before Baghdad had even fallen into American hands. This then is the paradox: to build democracy in Iraq the United States must stay on, but to demonstrate that it is not a colonial power it must leave.

The solution lies in involving other countries in this process. To the extent that the United States can make the assistance to Iraq multilateral, all the better. Of course, someone has to be in charge, and that will be the United States. But Washington should make every effort to have the United Nations bless this process, to get the European Union and Japan to help fund and administer it, and to get the Coalition forces to be involved as peacekeepers. This will take some of the economic and military burden off the United States, a burden that is likely to be larger and longer than anyone currently estimates. In the eyes of Iraqis, the involvement of outsiders will be seen as international assistance, not American occupation.

In a broader sense, how America handles Iraq will have a bearing on how the world perceives the United States. If we use this moment of victory and power to reach out and include others, it will demonstrate that we have not just great power but also generosity of spirit. Naturally, those who supported the military intervention should be given special attention. But a place can be found even for those who didn?t (with the possible exception of Mr. Chirac?s government. Even multilateralism has its limits).

Agree? Disagree?

 

[Dudd]

Eh, I just say go with the post-WWII Marshall Plan. It worked very well in Japan and Germany. Whatever Bush does, don't do it half assed. We know we can win wars, the hard part is making sure we don't have to return 15 years later.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dudd
Eh, I just say go with the post-WWII Marshall Plan. It worked very well in Japan and Germany. Whatever Bush does, don't do it half assed. We know we can win wars, the hard part is making sure we don't have to return 15 years later.

 

[LunarRay]

With their new freedom of speach you will hear the Iraqi demand that every one not Iraqi must leave Iraq.
Iraq will become simply another Islamic state.
Someone else will be in charge.. possibly with some form of real government but not what is envisioned currently by the caretakers.
This is the big danger to the hopes of the current administration... reality.

I have no link to offer, just my read on the situation.

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: HJD1
With their new freedom of speach you will hear the Iraqi demand that every one not Iraqi must leave Iraq.
Iraq will become simply another Islamic state.
Someone else will be in charge.. possibly with some form of real government but not what is envisioned currently by the caretakers.
This is the big danger to the hopes of the current administration... reality.

I have no link to offer, just my read on the situation.

Iraq is a pretty secular state to begin with...if a liberal democracy were to flourish in the Middle East, Iraq would be a good place to start.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Dudd
Eh, I just say go with the post-WWII Marshall Plan. It worked very well in Japan and Germany. Whatever Bush does, don't do it half assed. We know we can win wars, the hard part is making sure we don't have to return 15 years later.

THe only reason the marshall plan worked is because both Germany and Japan had large middle classes and both had some form of democracy in their history.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dudd
Eh, I just say go with the post-WWII Marshall Plan. It worked very well in Japan and Germany. Whatever Bush does, don't do it half assed. We know we can win wars, the hard part is making sure we don't have to return 15 years later.

Japan and Germany in the 40's-50's is a far different place from Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria(?)/Iran(?)/N. Korea(?) in the present day. To assume that an old plan for forming democracy will just "work" like it did then is assinine.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dudd
Eh, I just say go with the post-WWII Marshall Plan. It worked very well in Japan and Germany. Whatever Bush does, don't do it half assed. We know we can win wars, the hard part is making sure we don't have to return 15 years later.

Japan and Germany in the 40's-50's is a far different place from Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria(?)/Iran(?)/N. Korea(?) in the present day. To assume that an old plan for forming democracy will just "work" like it did then is assinine.

I would agree with some aspects of that. They do have alot in common though. The biggest difference I can see is the way the people themselves felt about their govt, based in large part by how they were treated. The Japaneese and German people were fiercely loyal to their leaders and enjoyed mostly free, prosperous lives under them, Saddams record is well known.

To all that suggest we let them rebuild everything themselves, think, they have not had access to the best technology the last 12 years. There have been advances that can make things easier for them, and far superior to the way it was before, we owe it to them to help bring their hospitals, schools, and cities into the modern world and make them world class insitutions. This is a golden opportunity for the US, I hope we do everything in our power to make sure Iraq and all it's people flourish beyond all expectations.

 

[jjones]

LOL, I like this part:

If we use this moment of victory and power to reach out and include others, it will demonstrate that we have not just great power but also generosity of spirit. Naturally, those who supported the military intervention should be given special attention. But a place can be found even for those who didn?t (with the possible exception of Mr. Chirac?s government. Even multilateralism has its limits).

 

[zephyrprime]

Alaska distributes its oil revenues directly to its residents, bypassing the corruption usually created by leaving it in the hands of governments or oligarchs.

I was thinking the exact same thing. But I think only people who also have jobs should get their distribution or else there will be a huge unemployed class that doesn't care to be employed as long as they're on the take.

Iraq pumps 1.6Mil barrels a day as of this Feb./ (1.6M/day*$25*365days/yr)/25million iraqis = ~$600/yr.

(Of course, there's production costs and I have no idea what these are so I can't account for them.)

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Alaska distributes its oil revenues directly to its residents, bypassing the corruption usually created by leaving it in the hands of governments or oligarchs.

I was thinking the exact same thing. But I think only people who also have jobs should get their distribution or else there will be a huge unemployed class that doesn't care to be employed as long as they're on the take.

Iraq pumps 1.6Mil barrels a day as of this Feb./ (1.6M/day*$25*365days/yr)/25million iraqis = ~$600/yr.

(Of course, there's production costs and I have no idea what these are so I can't account for them.)

It is well known his army was well paid, well fed, and well equipped, at least compared to the AVERAGE IRAQI citizen. Some of his troops were paid one dollar a month and were starving, and these were the ones taken the "best" care of.....

Right now Iraq is still limited to 4% production as imposed by the UN, whatever production costs are they can be offset by increased production. If one dollar a month was enough, how much benefit would $50 a month be going off your numbers? Consider it could be much higher, triple even, and they could still afford to pay for all their rebuilding and continued social sercives with NO TAXES, while still making this payment to each citizen. They have a fantastic chance here, I hope they don't fvck it up.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: HJD1
With their new freedom of speach you will hear the Iraqi demand that every one not Iraqi must leave Iraq.
Iraq will become simply another Islamic state.
Someone else will be in charge.. possibly with some form of real government but not what is envisioned currently by the caretakers.
This is the big danger to the hopes of the current administration... reality.

I have no link to offer, just my read on the situation.

Iraq is a pretty secular state to begin with...if a liberal democracy were to flourish in the Middle East, Iraq would be a good place to start.

I think not although I suppose I think against the grain on this issue. I think a staunch Arab Conservative state will emerge.. perhaps with semi realized ethnic representation.
I really have no agrument either way or toward any form other than what I think can survive.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: HJD1
With their new freedom of speach you will hear the Iraqi demand that every one not Iraqi must leave Iraq.
Iraq will become simply another Islamic state.
Someone else will be in charge.. possibly with some form of real government but not what is envisioned currently by the caretakers.
This is the big danger to the hopes of the current administration... reality.

I have no link to offer, just my read on the situation.

Iraq is a pretty secular state to begin with...if a liberal democracy were to flourish in the Middle East, Iraq would be a good place to start.

I think not although I suppose I think against the grain on this issue. I think a staunch Arab Conservative state will emerge.. perhaps with semi realized ethnic representation.
I really have no agrument either way or toward any form other than what I think can survive.

I'm pretty sure it will be a state based on Islamic law. Liberal and Islam just don't go together. These guys are so right wing over there, they make John Ashcroft look like a rebel.