Democracy in Iraq
The Fly's friend, confessor, and resident red cell, Father Time, posed the following question after reading the Iraq FAQ:
The issue of infrastructure was a fair one; I don't know that anyone was prepared for just how fragile the Iraqi infrastructure was at the time of the invasion. Personally, I'd file this under two headings: humanitarian abuses by Saddam Hussein, and things to remember the next time we're in a similar situation.
The core question, though, is what our actual outlook in Iraq was with regard to deposing the existing government. What few people realize is that the American policy in Iraq as far back as the Clinton Administration was one of regime change. While exchanging dictatorship for legitimate democracy can't be directly implied from that, it's a logical assumption that the best case scenario would be to change a totalitarian regime to a free and democratic one.
The existing government had to be dismantled. It was populated almost entirely by Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, and the Hussein regime was rampant with nepotism and croneyism. The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein consisted almost entirely of Saddam Hussein's lackeys and family, which is one of the reasons why he was able to hold power for so long. Leaving the existing government intact would have resulted in another Baathist taking power, and carrying on business as usual. Even so, if you'll remember, prior to the 2003 invasion the coalition leaders offered to avert the war if Saddam fully and completely cooperated with the IAEA/UNMOVIC inspectors, and later offered to avert the war if he and his croneys surrendered and went into exile.
So, between the regime change mandate that continued from President Clinton to President Bush, the mandate to replace the Taliban dictatorship with a free and democratic republic, and the fact that free and democratic nations neither attack other free and democratic nations nor support terrorism, the requirement to replace the Iraqi regime with a democracy was implicit in the 2003 mandate.
How about this - did we ever at any time prior to going after Saddam say our goal was to also bring democracy to Iraq?
I don't remember reading that was a goal. Instead, after deposing Saddam, we dismantled the existing government, leaving Iraq with a mammoth rebuilding job we and they were not prepared for.
The issue of infrastructure was a fair one; I don't know that anyone was prepared for just how fragile the Iraqi infrastructure was at the time of the invasion. Personally, I'd file this under two headings: humanitarian abuses by Saddam Hussein, and things to remember the next time we're in a similar situation.
The core question, though, is what our actual outlook in Iraq was with regard to deposing the existing government. What few people realize is that the American policy in Iraq as far back as the Clinton Administration was one of regime change. While exchanging dictatorship for legitimate democracy can't be directly implied from that, it's a logical assumption that the best case scenario would be to change a totalitarian regime to a free and democratic one.
The existing government had to be dismantled. It was populated almost entirely by Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, and the Hussein regime was rampant with nepotism and croneyism. The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein consisted almost entirely of Saddam Hussein's lackeys and family, which is one of the reasons why he was able to hold power for so long. Leaving the existing government intact would have resulted in another Baathist taking power, and carrying on business as usual. Even so, if you'll remember, prior to the 2003 invasion the coalition leaders offered to avert the war if Saddam fully and completely cooperated with the IAEA/UNMOVIC inspectors, and later offered to avert the war if he and his croneys surrendered and went into exile.
So, between the regime change mandate that continued from President Clinton to President Bush, the mandate to replace the Taliban dictatorship with a free and democratic republic, and the fact that free and democratic nations neither attack other free and democratic nations nor support terrorism, the requirement to replace the Iraqi regime with a democracy was implicit in the 2003 mandate.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home