Right on!
I also wonder where the anti-war democrats have been all along. Bush never said anything about a democratic Iraq in his State of the Union speech, yet I didn’t hear anyone upset about that notable absence. Did everyone just assume that everything would go well and that the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets with a new military government installed?

How would this plan, as Chris envisions it, be much different from the American/British/French occupation of Germany after World War II?

Is Germany not a democracy today? Was Germany not having elections within a few years? Imagine what post-war Germany would have been like had the US simply turned everything right over to german democrats on May 11th, 1945? The whole country would have starved,they had no currency reserves, so they could have purchased no imports.

Look, the long and short of the negotiations with Chalabi, and Iraq’s neighbors, are that the Iraqi opposition is weak and poor. And the United States will be obligated to the people of Iraq to AT LEAST insure the bare minimum conditions to keep Iran, Turkey, and, god-forbid, fascist Syria and absolutist Saudi Arabia meddling even further in internal Iraqi affairs.

The sad truth is that we are more than likely not about to watch a smooth process come about here. So certain Iraqi bureaucrats stay on? So what…Which nation on this planet has more successful experience in “nation building” in the 20th century than the United States? Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Japan, South Korea all came out pretty well in the medium run.

Iraq, rich as it is, has a similar opportunity.
That the top-tier US policy makers are not discussing what a post-war Iraq might look like internally is no surprise. Why discuss publicly now what you can only address then? Were there any big, elaborate plans in place for post-WWII British, French, American, or soviet occupation of Germany and Austria?

Not really…and that war was fought for six years.
Regards to all,
Todd Stromberg
Washington D.C
USA

Maybe the difference between this war and WWII is that in WWII, the outcome was less certain. In contrast, everybody knows that the U.S. military will handily defeat the laughable Iraqi army. The war part is almost an afterthought. Also, this war is a pre-emptive action which Rumsfeld and company have probably been planning for YEARS.
WWII was a war to stop Hitler from invading other countries — Gulf War Redux is a war of conquest.

Dave, Gulf War II is about “conquest?” Please! Perhaps it is about “transparency.” It is about the idea that the world has become a very dangerous place and that secretive dictators who obviusly have screws loose cannot be trusted to play with very dangerous toys.

Don’t even give me any of that “Bush the dictator” stuff. You ruin your argument by indulging in such nonsense. Evidence simply does not bear out your “argument;” only in the Orwellian world of Communism does this carry any weight.

By the way, I agree with Todd. Thanks, Todd.

“Dangerous toys”? I may be simplifying things by saying this war is a war of conquest, but you are simplifying the issue by saying it’s all about “secretive dictators” playing with “dangerous toys”. Apparently you haven’t read this blog if you think this war is a purely noble and moral cause.

Hm. Thing is, if Ahmad Chalabi is such a stooge, why is he showing up on the pages of WSJ making exactly this argument?

Right now, the argument over the reconstruction of Iraq is premature. The argument justifying war still has to be won (or succesfully circumvented to allow for an invasion).

Everyone seems to have their own call on this (US will turn Iraq into Oil Province; US will cut and run, leaving disaster; US will stay too long, bringing disaster; US will try to install emocracy and fail; US will stop democracy; etc etc). And perhaps this is the area the appeasement camp would do better to focus on, rather than their incoherent arguments against this necessary war. But we’re missing a pretty big part of the equation: the Iraqis. We’re going to need to see what they want, and to what model they find themsleves drawn. To do that will take time. In the interim, a peaceful military occupation might be the best way to achieve that.

You can start screaming when the US is found shooting up people on the streets out of imperial arrogance. Until then, quit thinking democracy happens spontaneously, and that there’s nothing worse than a temporary, stabilizing military occupation. There’s a lot worse.

where to begin? okay for a start…lovely phrase that ‘quit thinking democracy happens spontaneously’.…the implication being, of course, that democracy happens after an American invasion. Democracy (and perhaps we all need a lesson in this) is a bottom up process by which people themselves arrange their own political futures. Comparisons to Japan and Germany are, frankly, grotesque. In Germany Hitler achieved power via democratic means and (one infers, but probably correctly) governed with the consent of the majority. A similar situation in Japan. The idea that this is a comparison implies that the Iraqi people like Saddam Hussein, and voted for him.…not true. Hence patronisig nonsense about ‘denazification of iraq’. The American reputation as a ‘nation builder’ is frankly apalling…in the second half of the twentieth century the us turned south and central american into a gigantic concentration camp. Democracy was achieved despite the u.s. not because of it. In case we forget Germany was not ‘conquered by the u.s.’ as the above statements imply: it was governed by the U.S., Britain and the USSR. Similarly, other european countries were liberated by the Allies, not simply the u.s. To describe the ‘no war’ position as ‘appeasement’ is similarly grotesque: Hitler was intent on the conquest of the world, and people ‘appeased’ him by giving him small sections of europe and hoping he would be satisfied with that. What does saddam want to conquer? he only took Kuwait because of a green light by the u.s. (this was proved by Christopher Hitchens in his book of essays For the Sake of Argument, although he may wish to forget this now) and even then he only wanted the oil fields. The true threat to the world from WMD at present is Pakistan, who have nuclear weapons and have been sabre rattling (over Kashmir) with India for some time now. Here the U.S. and Britain appease Pakistan by turning a blind eye to his sponsorship of terrorism. The u.s. and Britain also ‘appease’ turkey in their own Kurdish extermination plan. The only difference of course is that the policy of the u.s. and britain is far worse than simply ‘appeasement’. As for the insults to anti-war protesters…i mean really, how many pro war people could have found Iraq on the map six months ago? How many could now? And any pro-war writer whose blood is boiling now.….okay prove me wrong. Tell me, without reaching for a book or surfing the net, which countries iraq borders, and what are their capitals (tell me their political leaders for a bonus point). (and yes i know).

Bush did imply democratic Iraq when he said:
“the day Saddam leaves is the day of your liberation”

Iraq will be liberated sooner or later. let’s hope the sooner the better.

” In Germany Hitler achieved power via democratic means and (one infers, but probably correctly) governed with the consent of the majority. A similar situation in Japan. The idea that this is a comparison implies that the Iraqi people like Saddam Hussein, and voted for him.…not true. Hence patronisig nonsense about ‘denazification of iraq’.”

Nothing patronizing about a truth.
the Ba’athist regime and ideology is explicitly modelled as a national socialist model - similar to nazism.
Hitler, yes, was elected but he destroyed the democracy and built a one-party dictatorship that killed opponents. Saddam Hussein has done pretty much the same for 20 plus years, killing and jailing thousands of iraqis and imposing a rigid state. It’s the Baath party itself that is the instrument of control.

The plan is to democratize Iraq. No ifs and or buts. How that happens is part of behind the scenes plans. It will be required to remove the party functionaries and any of those who participated in the gross human rights abuses of the Hussein regime.

“how many pro war people could have found Iraq on the map six months ago?” Please. Tell someone against the war about Saddam’s crimes.

“Tell me, without reaching for a book or surfing the net, which countries iraq borders, and what are their capitals” Iran/Tehran, Syria/Damascus, Turkey/Ankara, Kuwait/Kuwait city, Jordan/Amman, Saudi Arabia/Riyadh (yawn). so I know, but how can it prove anything?

It’s understanding the nature of regimes, not their capitals that counts!
Your lack of knowledge mislead you to think hitler was a democrat - come on!

Now tell me which country has worse human rights record than Iraq?
Now tell me how many died in Saddam’s jails?
(nearest 10,000 is good enough)
How many died in the Anfal campaign of genocide
against the kurds?
(nearest 100,000 is good enough)
How many got raped by his professional rapists?
How many of the several hundred thousand kurds killed in his genocide were killed by chemical wepaons?
How many kurd leaders has Al-Ansar brigade killed on his orders?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/18/74151.shtml
Now ask yourself:
How much VX and Anthrax did Saddam produce? How much is left?
WHERE IS IT? (Hans Blix would like to know!)

And how many marching against war either (a) dont care about above items or (b) dont know about Saddam’s brutality and terror ties and are too arrogant to get informed about it?

A slight edit to patrick’s post:
“And how many [cheering for] war either (a) dont care about [the U.S’s history in the region] or (b) dont know about [the United States’] brutality and terror ties and are too arrogant to get informed about it?”

Better yet, how many people think you’re leftist disloyal ranting has any audience outside of your pseudo-intellectual clique? Yep, you guys have been marginalized in a big way, yada, yada, yada ash-heep of history.

Reply to Adam,
Adam, at the risk of appearing to insult you, which is not at all my purpose, i am obliged to point out that the only thing grotesque pertaining on this board are the apparent limits of your familiarity with the rise of fascism in germany; militaristic governance in japan; and your assertion that the US turned central and south america into a concentration camp.

To begin with, Hitler, in fact, lost the election of January ‘34. The country was already being run by anti-democratic, executive decree from 1932 onwards thanks to Franz Von Pappen, hitler’s predecessor as Chancellor of Germany. President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor of germany in late january ‘34 after he failed to win a majority in the reichstag. The public platform of both the NSDAP and the German Communist Party was to USE the mechanisms of democracy to dismantle that very same democracy and rule by dictatorship if they ever came to power.
Within a month or two of coming to power, in the wake of the Reichstag fire, Hitler passed the Enabling Laws…which outlawed opposition parties such as the KDP and the SPD! How on earth is that democratic? How on earth is that ruling with the consent of the governed? That, Adam, is called “one party totalitarianism.” What on earth are you being taught in canada that one could confuse one-party totalitarianism with democracy??

The issue, overall, is:
How many democracies were in europe in 1914? Britain? France? Belgium and the netherlands somewhat so…but almost the entire rest of the continent lived under absolutist or nearly complete monarchies! Now, 89 years removed, there are between 40-50 democracies in europe, and one absolutist state(Belorus)…czechoslovakia and poland and latvia etc did not become democracies because of some uprising on the part of the middle class…instead, in these cases, the totalitarian regimes which ruled them had to be pushed over by overwhelming outside presure.

Japan? Japan was no democracy in the 30’s, unless one considers the internecine sqaubles between this or that faction of the army and navy to be somehow or another democractic.

And to assert, as you have, that the United states turned central and south america into some sort of concentration camp in the later half of the 20th century is positively preposterous.

How many regimes were installed in central america or south america on american bayonnettes? Zero? Can you name any? Which regime? How many americans fought to prop up Samoza? How many americans installed fascistic governments or military juntas in brazil, argentina, paraquay, uruguay, bolivia, columbia, etc, etc, etc.
Those nations were tin-pot tyranies long before the United States rose to great power status in the later half of the 19th century…and Mexican governments, and Nicaraguan government, and Argentine governments, etc, etc ruled mexicans, argentines, and nicaraguans…Americans didn’t rule them. Nor did Americans rule in Guatemala. Guatemalans themselves, sadly, appeared entirely adept in descending into civil war for decade upon decade.

Perhaps you are of the mind that the 50 million central and south americans who have migrated to the united states in the last 40 years were welcomed here as some sort of a part of a sinister plot to, at once, create the non-existant political concentration camps you refer to, while also encouraging the very poorest people in the hemisphere to migrate to the United States en masse! What a brilliant plan! Of course, that’s ludicrous.

Central and South America have had a political history which, nearly without fail, has been anti-democratic for 500 years. Those countries weren’t american colonies…they were European colonies. Now, miraculously, in the wake of the cold war, there are exactly zero dictatorships or one party police states in central and south america…and only one one-party totalitarian police-state in the Carribean…That’s Cuba.

Perhaps one can take an episode of a decade here and there (nicargua in the 30’s) and use that to say ‘america set up a political concentration camp.”

But, if so, does that not somehow absolve, for instance, the nicaraguans themselves of the 400 years proceeding that and the seventy years following that from having maybe just a little to do with the poltical development of their own country?

After all…the Sandinistas did not just fall of their own weight…they did not just wake up one morning, and have Daniel Ortega opt to host an election so his one-party police state could lose control…if it weren’t for presure from the United States and its allies in the hemisphere, what possible evidence exists that advances the notion that democracy, for isntance, in the case of nicaragua, did not take root with a outside assistance??

The importance of all this history is that, in the face of a cowed and brow-beaten populace, the mechanisms to overthrow tyrany rarely develop.

Sadly, the history of the 20th century shows that entrenched absolutists, totalitarians, and monarchists are more ‘easily’ toppled from without than within. And, equally sadly, it has taken a great sacrifice in terms of lives and treasure of the free to liberate the enslaved.

Most sincerely and respectfully,
Todd C. Stromberg
Washington, D.C.
USA

Here! Here!

Damnit, I wish we HAD some political concentration camps. I can think of two ex-presidents, and about 40 US Senators that I’d lock up.

When I first heard the Bush administration use the phrase ‘regime change’, the thought occured to me that it meant exactly that — the replacement of one unelected regime with another.

Amen to everything Todd just said…

In all this debate about the war, lets not forget that the Reagan Administration once threatened trade sanctions against my country - New Zealand - because we would not accept anyone’s weapons of mass destruction. We still don’t and are no longer considered an ally of the US on that basis.

In all this debate please also remember that under international law, this current war is a crime and that if the legal standards applied at the close of WW2 were applied to President Bush he would probably face execution.

To my knowledge, only 5 out of 18 regime changes initiated by US governments have instituted democracies. Afghanistan is still a complete mess.

Former US governments (which include people close to the current administration) have also ended democratic government and maintained many of the world’s worst dictators in power.

Why should the rest of the world have any confidence in this administration when it clearly has no respect for international law.

Yes, New Zealand was recently involved in regime change. After many decades of being blocked by successive US regimes, the people of East Timor finally won their freedom. New Zealand solders were there and some died protecting a fledgling democracy as it became established. To my knowledge, the US government was nowhere to be seen.

(…) The argument that we succeeded in building democracy in Japan and Germany and therefore can build it anywhere does not necessarily hold. Japan and Germany were countries with a homogeneous population and a long existence as nations. They each were steeped in guilt at the depredations of their soldiers in other lands. They were near to totally destroyed but had the people and the skills to rebuild their cities. The Americans who worked to create their democracy were veterans of Roosevelt’s New Deal and, mark of the period, were effective idealists.

Iraq, in contrast, was never a true nation. Put together by the British, it was a post–World War I patchwork of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Turkomans, who, at best, distrusted one another intensely. A situation analogous to Afghanistan’s divisions among its warlords could be the more likely outcome. No one will certainly declare with authority that democracy can be built there, yet the arrogance persists. There does not seem much comprehension that except for special circumstances, democracy is never there in us to create in another country by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally over centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions. The only defenses of democracy, finally, are the traditions of democracy. When you start ignoring those values, you are playing with a noble and delicate structure. There’s nothing more beautiful than democracy. But you can’t play with it. You can’t assume we’re going to go over to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance.

(…) The need for powerful theory can fall into many an abyss of error. I could, for example, be entirely wrong about the deeper motives of the administration. Perhaps they are not interested in Empire so much as in trying in true good faith to save the world. We can be certain Bush and his Bushites believe this. By the time they are in church each Sunday, they believe it so powerfully that tears come to their eyes. Of course, it is the actions of men and not their sentiments that make history. Our sentiments can be loaded with love within, but our actions can turn into the opposite.

—Norman Mailer

The New York Review of Books / March 2003

Nice to read a fellow kiwi. Well said.

Perhaps it would help if the USA actually had a “Congressional Declaration of War” on Iraq.

You could then be officially at “War with Iraq”

Perhaps it would help if bush had been elected constitutionaly, then we could have a real debate about the legality and war criminal nature of his junta’s illegal war. As it is, we’re stuck with both an ill-egel pres and an illegal “police action” with dubious motives and outcome. However, why anybody expects legal behavior from the feds is beyond me, just ask the iriquoi nation.

your the same type of people that supported staying out of wwi and wwii
your also the same type people who thought the soviets would win the cold war
so why do you now site success your side was opposed to?
in short your opinion is of no value.…
pacifist should dig a whole and lie down till one of us has the time to cover you with dirt!!!

i notice your statement about hitler “democratic means”
i would hope your not another one of the idiots that falsely claims hitler was elected to any office
he couldnt even get elected dog catcher…
he was appointed to his post!!!

i quote you “You can’t assume we’re going to go over to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance.”
that is exactly what your side said about the cold war
hmm… why should i beleive this time
funny i still dont speak russian

Bob, I don’t know if the credits for sanity should go to “my side” or yours, but I’m afraid you forget why that war was called — and kept — “cold.”

Ignorance is bliss. It is arrogant to believe we are doing this for the benefit of the Iraqi people? U.S history over the last 50 years has proven otherwise. Examples:Guatamala, Colombia, Chile, Iran, Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Lebanon…etc etc.…..Learn what we have done to those countries in the name of “protecting our national security”, “in fighting communism”,in “fighting the war on drugs” etc.…(all rhetoric)
The only difference is this administration is doing it openly, the past administrations have used the CIA in the past.

Take classes, read, learn what our government is doing, and maybe then, you can truly understand why 9-11 happened, why the world hates us and why we are are civil liberities are slowly erroding. The U.S government is doing things in our name that is contrary to what we stand for and what we’re brought up to believe in. Wake up America, there are alot of things going on during this war that is going to affect your lives. Examples: U.S Patriot Act(which is unconstitutional), U.S partriot act two which is being proposed in congress.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

The Homeland Security act has given pharmaceudical companies a way to avoid lawsuits if there are adverse drug reactions.
Section 304 of the bill removed from the states their historic control over public health laws, including vaccination laws, and handed it over to federal health officials. Simultaneously, Sections 1714-1717 of the bill shielded the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits for injuries caused by FDA-approved vaccines, such as mercury containing pediatric vaccines associated with the development of autism in many children.
http://www.909shot.com/Issues/homeland%20security.htm

The Bush administration has several men who were charged with Iran/Contra scandal during Reagans years (to name a few: Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich,Paul Wolfowitz,John Negroponte). when I hear the media say the bush administration demands loyalty within it’s administration, I think of these men, and how they put loyalty first over the american people,over the U.S constitution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0710-01.htm

we are going to be paying for this war for years to come. Our economy is in the toilet. State’s are cutting school funding and other resources just to try to meet their budgets. What does this mean to you and me? It means higher tuition, inner city schools not being able to buy updated textbooks, higher taxes

Look at the lovely job we are doing in afghanistan? War Lords are fighting over regions? Afghanistan failed to be included in the U.S Aid budget.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm

Wake up America? Our Corporate media has failed us! Our government has failed us! We have failed by not keeping informed, by caring more about who’s going to be the next stupid American Idol then by what our government and what our U.S business our doing around the world? Who will be paying for this? YOU AND ME!! WE are going to be continually attacked abroad and at home because we fail to understand what our foreign policy, what our U.S companies are doing to people around the world.

Knowledge is power!!! Learn, Understand, Speak Out!Look this stuff up on the web. Look up these names, look up these acts, look up the countries I discussed. Everything is out there. The world knows about these things we have done, how come we dont’?

War is about self-interest. Despite some excellent analyis AND some not-so-well-informed ramblings, most here overlook the fact that all wars so far have been about self-interest.

The US did not enter WWII to bring democracy to those oppressed by Hitler. It entered the war when the Japanese, Germany’s ally, started dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, the US tried hard to stay out of the mess Europe was in. And while there may be parallels between the oppressive regimes in Nazi Germany and Iraq, there are no such parallels in our reasons for going to war against each.

The notion of the US “liberating” Iraqis and bringing democracy to it other nations out of goodwill has never been true and is only the logical mask the US administration has to put on the ugly face of war to enlist the support of a nation weaned on hero-movie sentimentality.

At the same time, it is a naive oversimplification to use “the man” arguments in explaining the Bush administration’s motives. While Bush may have plenty of lobbyist checks in his pockets (as does every other US President), “the big corporations” did not whisper “war on Iraq” in his ear. That is an all too simple interpretation of naive college students that think “why can’t we all get along” and carry over teenage self-assertion into the fight against “globalization” (the apple juice you drink is from China, the computer you type on is made in Taiwan, your shoes are made in Malaysia, and the router that carries your protest against global corporations is brought to you by global corporations - wake up it’s century 21).

This war is a multifaceted, hard fisted fight for US interests. It is about taking control of a country that falls out of step with the other nations in the middle east, who gladly sell oil without asserting political pressure on us. Hussein was a threat to us not because he was a despot over his people, but because he had the potential to challenge US interests.

This is a chance to solve multiple issues:
a) secure influence in an the middle east because it’s oil-rich region and instability there threatens our self-interest (cheap energy)
b) eliminate the most remote, but nevertheless present threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists (while I don’t believe Iraq had many, the potential of proliferation was there).
c) demonstrate America’s military power to parts of the world that post 9-11 think the US is weak

Believe me, I am not agreeing, but a, b, and c are undeniable facts. This war is illegal, a bizarre ignorance of international law, and a huge step back in a century of political and diplomatic progress. The only thing I know in all this anymore is that the future of this strongarm approach is short-sighted. We will secure our short term interests, but in the long run, this war, unlike the WWII, will not bring long-lasting prosperity in the middle east.

Why can’t we all just get along? Because we all want more…

Hitler elected? (appointed then promptly destroyed opposing parties)

America setting up “concentration camps” in south and central America? (500+ yrs of monarchy and totalitarian rule before USA’s efforts but its the USAs fault)

“International Law”? (No such law. Common practice, yes. Saddam pretty much ignored all of this so-called “international law”. The international community ignored the injustice to the very people it was supposed to help)

Im not going to say America has ALWAYS been right in what it does but this moral relativism is appalling when you compare Bush vs Saddam. A little perspective will do alot of good.