Why the war fails and why US should stay in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[bub]

Let's forget the supposed "WMD's", the supposed links with Al Quaeda that are never been proved and the supposed nuclear threat to the US that has not been proved neither.

Let's suppose that Mr Bush decided to invade Iraq ONLY to bring democracy, and not make profit from the war.

So, my question would be "can democracy be imposed by force from the outside?"

> On the one hand, pro-wars will point the success of the war and occupation of Germany and Japan in 1945, that brought democracy.

> But on the other hand, they must admit that both Germany and Japan began with a set of endowments that helped democratization and that are not replicated in Iraq, and so democratization is not likely to happen as it did in 1945.

WHY YOU MAY NOT COMPARE GERMANY AND JAPAN WITH IRAQ:


1) Germany and Japan were great powers, both were highly industrialized and had a high GNP per capita. The infusion of money was enough to rebuild their powerful industries since they still had skilled workers and managers after the war.

>< Iraq has never achieved an advanced level of economic development. If you want it to do so, it will take a very long time and cost much more money than in Germany and Japan.

The economic development is linked to the democratic outcome: the chances for democratic survival are directly linked to the GNP (Adam Przeworski)



2) A second factor is ethnic homogeneity: in germany there are germans, in japan, japaneses, but in iraq there are shia, sunni and kurdish => distrust

= deep cleavages that makes democratization unlikely


$
3) Both Germany and Japan had effective state institutions. >< Saddam's corrupted and patrimonnially organized institutions.

Before democracy, you must have a state of law with effective state institutions that can deliver fair order to citizens



4) Both Germany and Japan had prior experience with meaningful democracy, party structures, critical press and elections. >< Iraq has been ruled by force since 1958

Party institution still have to be built and accepted by Iraqis



5) Democratization in Germany and Japan has been endowed by leaders of national stature: Hirohito and Konrad Adenauer >< Iraq has a shortage of leaders of national stature. Ali al Sistani is a potential figure but is limited to the Shia community.

And if you takes statistics, you'll see that out of 17 military occupations by the US in the 20th century, only 4 brought stable democrcay (Japan, Germany, Grenada, Panama) :shock:



HOW TO BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ?

> impose democratic reforms and institutions AND make those inovation perceived as serving the interests of the iraqis
> bring goods to the iraqis to make them associate democracy with prosperity and endorse it
> find a national leader that is accepted by the 3 communities




Since those aims are not attainable in the course of brief occupations, you should stay at least 3 or 4 more years if you want to bring democracy.

But since you are simply hated by the arab world, I don't see what you can do.

If I reffer to the British colonization, I'd say you have tried to be too fast: you increased ethnic polarization between the 3 communities by trying to impose democracy on an ill-prepared society, that led to civil war and complicated peace. You should bring strong and accepted state institutions (police...) and bring order before hoping for democratization


Based on "the iraqi intervention and democracy in comparative historical perspective", by eva bellin