Former President Bush likes to fantasize that his decision to invade Iraq will be vindicated by history. It won’t. It will always be seen as ill-advised policy that was catastrophically costly in both dollars and human lives. But there is one thing that can make his blunder seem less awful. And that one thing is if Iraq can actually maintain a democratic system of government where there are free and relatively fair elections, and where there are occasional peaceful exchanges of power. I am still not sure how likely such a prospect is, but yesterday’s provincial elections went off fairly well. It’s true that five candidates for office were assassinated, and it’s also true that there were many glitches and problems with people’s voter registrations. But, overall, the elections went smoothly considering the recent history of Iraq.
Iraq’s neighbors, Turkey and Iran, also have democratic elections, although Iran’s are marred by the influence of the Council of Guardians who both determine who can run for office and hold the real power in the government. Iraq is the only Arab country that has a government that is truly elected by the people. To date, their elections have been heavily distorted by America’s influence and backdoor meddling, but going forward it is certainly possible that Iraq will develop a more purely indigenous political culture.
It is a big ‘if’, but if Iraq can hold together and maintain periodic elections that include peaceful transfers of power, it will eventually become a positive influence on its Arab neighbors. At the same time, that positive influence could be deeply destabilizing and undermine the credibility of the Assads of Syria and the royal houses of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Moreover, true Arab democracy is not going to start out as a natural ally of the United States. True Arab sentiment is deeply suspicious and hostile to American foreign policy in the Middle East. One of the persistent questions about the neo-conservative project is why they ever thought Arab democracy would be good for Israel’s security. Our entire foreign policy has been predicated on the idea that we cannot afford Arab democracy because a) we don’t want instability, and b) the Arab street opposes the peace agreements that Egypt and Jordan made with Israel. Have those assumptions been wrong? I never could understand the neo-conservatives’ real motives. Smashing Iraq into little pieces made sense because that would prevent them from ever projecting power again beyond their borders and threatening Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. But building them up into a democracy? That is more likely to lead to both instability and a deterioration in Israel’s position.
As with all things in the Middle East, things are complicated and unpredictable. If the United States can help create a peace agreement in Palestine, and if Iraq can make it as a functional democracy, and if America can develop a green-based energy sector, then there might a bright future for the Middle East. If all of that were to happen, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq wouldn’t look quite so terrible. If others can take Bush’s lemons and make lemonade, maybe all of this carnage and waste will not have been for naught.
But I wouldn’t get my hopes up. For the foreseeable future, the decision to invade Iraq will be considered as the worst blunder in U.S foreign policy history. And that doesn’t even take into account the decisions the Bush administration made after they invaded.
.
The carnage and waste meaning hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the shock and awe will not be forgotten for decades. The distrust of America is very real and extends now throughout the free world. It’s the action of an invasion and occupation without any legal base that will give support to anti-American sentiment, similar to the Israeli illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
The Neocon movement was a strong pro-Israel at all cost policy that failed miserably and is part of the greed and exploits of political power that took hold of Western society in the last decade of the 20th century. This failed policy will be buried by the Obama administration and be replaced by an America as a beacon of hope. It may be too late as the American financial empire has crumbled before our eyes, a feat OBL failed to accomplish in 2001.
PS A criminal act cannot be renamed as a blunder.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“Iraq is the only Arab country that has a government that is truly elected by the people.“
Lebanon has elected its government for many years. Although they do not have a country, the Palestinians’ government was elected by the people. The fact that the United States and Israel immediately made it impossible for that government to govern, punished the people for electing it, and later tried to destroy it completely does not change that fact.
And in any case, the Iraqi government was not truly elected by the people. The Prime Minister and his cabinet were selected by the occupying power when the Parliament failed to make the “correct” choice on its own.
Mercy Boo, you know I got to chime in on this.
While yes Turkey has no “Council of Guardians”, it has a number of limitations to it being truly democratic.
First and foremost, any political party based on religious lines is explicitly banned. Statements routinely made by the Republican Party would be cause for that party being banned if they were in Turkey.
Furthermore there’s absolutely nothing like religious leaders speaking at inaugurations, etc.
Secondly, the Turkish military is heavily involved in censoring political movements. There have been four outright interventions by the military (the last in 1997) and often a stern word from a leading general is enough to “rein in” politicians.
And last but not least, let’s not forget the perennial repression of the Kurdish people, including their political movements.
As for what Hurria said, Lebanon has a long history of democratic elections, which on balance I’d say are equally “fair” as the current Iraqi system. Why Lebanon never gets any credit for this is beyond me.
Our entire foreign policy has been predicated on the idea that we cannot afford Arab democracy because a) we don’t want instability, and b) the Arab street opposes the peace agreements that Egypt and Jordan made with Israel.
I don’t who this “we” is, since the vast majority of Americans get absolutely nothing (in terms of resources) from Arab countries. Most of those petroleum products get sold to Europe and Japan, not the United States.
As for “not wanting instability”, how many times do WE need to learn the lesson of blowback? We had a nice friendly dictator in Iran for 20 some years and you can see how well that worked out.
So why keep propping up dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria? Beyond my ability to understand.
Pax
good point on Turkey.
On Lebanon? I don’t consider their system to be valid. It is even more jury-rigged than Iran’s latest elections. Political confessionalism is a way to keep the peace, but it not democratic, even if they have elections.
Well this is exactly what they do in Rwanda, Mauritania and lots of other countries and is heralded and considered quite valid and democratic.
Why is a quota for Maronite representatives “less democratic” than Rwanda’s quote for female representatives?
And how is this fundamentally different than the way congressional districts are drawn in the 50 United States?
Am I saying any of these systems is completely “fair” and universally representative? Heck no. But I don’t see how Lebanon gets the bad rap.
Pax
And the Palestinian elections, soj? Those were certainly free and fair, and far more transparent and free of coercion than Iraq’s. The Palestinians chose their government, and were punished for it, and Israel and the US have tried to destroy it ever since in order to put their corrupt stooges into place.
Quite honestly, I know almost nothing about the Palestinian elections. I mean I am aware of what the outcome was but in terms of how it is arranged, how “fair” it is, how representative, etc, I am woefully ignorant.
Pax
I don’t know if the American Empire is ready to leave Iraq completely in the near future. Obama keeps mentioning a force of some sixty thousand soldiers or so who will be retained there in some capacity.
Afghanistan beckons and, no doubt, will occupy the center of US attention in the Middle East, excluding Israel, of course. Until the money runs out and the inevitable retreat occurs. Probably within the next two or three years.
I wonder if the Russian Federation with the backing of Iran will help Afghanistan against the American devils. What a turn around that would be.
Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
Kind of keeps things in perspective.
Athens invaded Sicily in 415 BC on the basis of poor intelligence and no realistic planning. Because of that they lost the Peloponnesian War and It is now 2009 and Athens’ Sicilian Expedition still universally considered one of the biggest military f@ckups of all time. Though Athens struggles on for several more years, the Athenian democracy came to an end in 411 and they were conquered and occupied by Sparta in 404 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition