Democracy for Iraq:
Imagine, for example, the laborious process of bringing democracy to Iraq. Would the West really accept a Islamic party winning? Not the Justice and Development Party of Turkey say, but an Iranian backed Clerical Party. The West and the USA would have to swallow hard and accept or , like Algeria, 'We didn't mean you guys'.
The USA says it will run Iraq with a military government until elections can be held. This is imposed democracy, has never been tried before and is certain to fail, The most enthusiastic supporter of democracy will always resent it being imposed at the point of a gun. At some, point, US troops will end up shooting someone they shouldn’t, probably as an accident in a crowd situation and local feelings will erupt.
Comparisons to post war Japan and Germany miss the main point. Both those countries had functioning parliamentary systems before the war and militant takeovers by war enthusiasts. All the occupying forces did was to pick it up and put it back on the rails. In the case of Germany and Japan, the civil service was essentially intact and available for use. Denazification never seriously worked. In a large number of cases, membership of the local Nazi party came with the job rather than the other way around. In Japan, they carried on doing it much the same as before with a new constitution and the same boss.
How happy will the local Iraqi be when he sees the local Baathaist hospital administrator carry on with his job?
There is a reason why democracy has not flourished in Islamic countries with the exception of perhaps Iran. Islam can be seen as an all-embracing way of life, including the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled. Democracy in the western form has no place.
The democratic system in Iraq will have to be built from the ground up and a whole generation educated. Will the USA really have the courage to keep several divisions of troops there, perhaps for 10-15 years? I doubt it.
Temptations
Just think of the temptation. There you are, Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on the globe, with a victorious army in the heart of Iraq. Right next door is Syria and Iran, two more founder members of the Axis of Evil. I know what Paul Wolfowitz
will be whispering in his ear. ‘Go for it, Syria next. Crap army, no functional air force any more’.
Will he just say no? Or how about Iran, long the bugbear of all Presidents since Carter? How wonderful to go down in history as the hostage avenger. How nice to bring that mad mullah to justice, the one who cackled as he sifted through the charred bodies at the site where the rescue helicopters crashed. Thinks of all that oil and natural gas as well.
Then there's all that oil and a large bill to pay as well. How tempting to say 'Look, we liberated you. There will be a small charge , easy payments over 10 years. How will that go down? Will the Iraqis get a vote on that?
Kurds
If there is one place I would not like to go with an army, it is there. A formula that satisfies both Turkey and the Kurds and the Turkomen would be wonderful but, again, is a pipe dream. There is going to be a loser in the region of Iran and it will probably be the Kurds yet again. Regional autonomy would be too much for an already suspicious Turkey. Anything less would be yet another betrayal of the Kurds and a repeat of The Treaty of Sèvres which gave them a state, only to see it taken away by the Treaty of Lausanne some three years later. Turkey has killed some 25,000 to 30,000 Kurds. Iraq disposed of another 200,000. Iran jumped on them with both feet in 1979.
Using US troops as an arbitrator in what could be a regional civil war based on the oil fields of the North will be unpleasant. Iran, Turkey have both repressed the Kurds in the most brutal way possible, The USA may do it with smiles and flowers but it’s time they were given a state of their own.
Currently, the Kurds own a northern oil field. Just what will the USA have to pay to get it back?
The voice on the street.
Currently , this war is unpopular. The demonstrations against the first Gulf War were tiny compared to this. The resentment that this war will generate will be hard to shake off. The damage to USA-European relations will take some time to mind. The 'New Europeans' of the former Soviet bloc are not a replacement for Germany and France. Talking of rebasing troops further East is sure to make the Russian bear even more nervous than he already is.
Economy
The USA is a wealthy country but the costs of running a country of 27 Million people are enormous. Starting a war in a recession and a large budget deficit does not seem wise.The cost of all wars has been under estimated before they start and this one will be no exception. This will be the most expensive war for the USA since Vietnam, for an outcome just as risky. The taxpayers of the USA and Uk will have to take most of the strain. I do not belive that the risks of leaving Saddam in power justify the costs involved.
Summary
Some readers may dismiss these as old, tired arguments. That the argument for war is just as strong, if not stronger. I almost agreed at one point. We are moving into an ever more uncertain future, fighting demons that can be caged, not killed. There is no compelling case for attacking Iraq for regime change. It's the equivalent to tossing dice with whole nations at stake.