Do the Iraqis and Afghans want democracy?

Or do they simply want strong leaders who will maintain law and order? Which should we give them?

A bit patronizing to say “Which should we give them”, eh? Are you the masters of their fate: the poor little undeveloped Darkies in The Middle East? Why don’t you ask your bosses, GWB and CIA?

The NATO occupation of Afghanistan is a reality. The American occupation of Iraq is a reality. We have the power, which means we also have the responsibility. Don’t be petulant.

The occupations may be a reality, but they are illegal and reek of imperialism. Amerika is in Afghanistan for it’s strategic proximity to Russia; in Iraq for the oil. Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda are in Pakistan and the 9-11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi. Why aren’t those two countries occupied by the enlightened, benevolent bringers of “peace, stability and democracy”. Tell the resistance fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq to not be petulant.

Yet at the end of the day, it’s just one more set of impositions from another foreign invader. Both countries are artificial entities constructed by foreign powers. If they are to survive in the short term, then surely they don’t need some extraneous abstract and unworkable set of concepts like democracy & good government, to which they are entirely unaccustomed.
Peace & Order should be the main tasks. Which means more war, at least for another generation or two.

Well said. What we should ‘give’ them is to get out of their countries, stay off their land, stop interfering in their governments and, above all, stop killing their innocents.

I’m not being petulant as I respect your opinions, but can you explain how and why you think we have the ability or power to give the Iraqis and Afghans the kind of gov we want. As I have observed the situations over the past 7 years we have little ability to impose any order on these two countries that is not based on their complete cooperation and agreement.

Recal that it was Sistani’s influence and power that lead to the first elections. Certainly the Bush admin did not want this but prefered to appoint a non-elected governing body (with many Iraqi gov in exile members). With the Iraqis demanding the US leave by 2011, and the Bush admin agreeing, our hands our tied. We will have no more influence if we ever had any.

As for Afghanistan, surely you wouldn’t argue we have any power there to impose the type of governing structure we want (one that has actual power, that is).

Afghanistan remains at is always has been - under the thumb of tribal allegiance to whichever local warlord has the most guns.

They perpetuate control by killing or making shady, self-enriching allegiances with whoever attempts to steal away control.They are distrusting of outsiders and willing to either kill or welcome&protect a foreigner based on tribal traditions and codes most “developed” countries do not understand. They aren’t going to change.

The idea of “democracy” as we know it has no place in that it threatens to remove power from those who have it & give it to those who do not. The only way to move in that direction is through economic & infrastructure development, leading to prosperity for MORE than just the leaders, leading to education (can’t do this first - they won’t allow it in many places), leading to creation of civil society, eventually leading out of the middle ages, which really IS where they remain. But, while there are some areas where people want development, prosperity, peace & education, many don’t want that. They prefer to keep their traditional religious & social roles instead. If change happens, it will take a very LOOONG time.

Iraq: it’s possible, largely because they already HAD relative economic prosperity & modern infrastructure, a fair degree of secular social equality & higher education, even if they had a dictator & police state (Taiwan, anybody? S. Korea? Same.). We basically ruined all that over a personal vendetta & allowed unsavory elements to creep in. They’ll get back there if they want to, but they have a limited window where people remember how it “used to be” and want to return. At the moment, the smart & liberal ones have fled the country, leaving the destitute & radical behind.

BTW, the U.S. doesn’t give a crap if Afghanistan is near Russia - that’s what ICBMs, NATO bases & Alaska are for! Iran, on the other hand… (I think it’s the other mainly unspoken rationale for Iraq…now they’re “surrounded”). It’s also easier to deal w/Pakistani problems unilaterally from within a failed Afghanistan than bilaterally w/hands tied by a nearly failed Pakistan…

Do the Iraqis and Afghans want democracy? Maybe
Do the Iraqis and Afghans need democracy? No
Do we have the right to tell anyone what to do any more? No
Will we continue to tell people what to do? Yes, we can’t help it
Is the world going tits up and more wars likely (especially as China and Russia are also starting to tell people what to do)? Yes
Twas ever thus, get your tin hat ready :bow:

I’m not being petulant as I respect your opinions, but can you explain how and why you think we have the ability or power to give the Iraqis and Afghans the kind of gov we want. As I have observed the situations over the past 7 years we have little ability to impose any order on these two countries that is not based on their complete cooperation and agreement.

Recal that it was Sistani’s influence and power that lead to the first elections. Certainly the Bush admin did not want this but prefered to appoint a non-elected governing body (with many Iraqi gov in exile members). With the Iraqis demanding the US leave by 2011, and the Bush admin agreeing, our hands our tied. We will have no more influence if we ever had any.

As for Afghanistan, surely you wouldn’t argue we have any power there to impose the type of governing structure we want (one that has actual power, that is).[/quote]

Well Mucha Man, I can’t say I disagree with any of the above. As usual, very well said.

Do they want democracy?

Now is a fine time to ask.

WTF? “Give them”? Democracy isn’t dictated from outside a country, it’s chosen from within. Western nations interfering in their countries is why these places are so screwed up to begin with, and most times that interference was intended to prevent democracy, not create it.

  • Iraq is an artificial country whose borders were laid out by the British at the behest of oil companies, ethnic and religious differences bedamned.

  • Iran WAS a democracy until 1953 when the US and UK helped the Shah overthrow and destroy the democracy. Iran’s president, Mossadegh, was the first Chavez, refusing to sell oil at cut rates instead of selling it at open market prices.

  • The Afghans were actually better off under the Soviet-backed government before the US armed the Mujahadeen. And, of course, those same Mujahadeen used the same weapons they were given when they were invaded by the US 25 years later.

  • And then there’s the issue of countries the US called its “allies in the war on terror”, most of whom were brutal and murderous dictatorships themselves (e.g. Uzbekistan).

Anyone who reads history instead of listening to the corporate (read: rightwing) media knows that when the US “exports democracy”, it means they try to remove it, not bring it in (e.g. Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Greece, England, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, etc.).

I don’t disagree, but sometimes countries get a little push, as with Germany and Japan after WWII. My intended emphasis wasn’t really on whether we should “give” them democracy, but whether they want it at all. I’m guessing it depends on who you ask…

Shi’a Arab: Yes, democracy is a beautiful thing. We’re in the majority and democracy has given us a chance to turn the tables on our Sunni overlords by dominating the government, populating the military with our militias, and cleansing the God-damned Sunnis out of our neighbors.

Sunni Arab: No, democracy is a terrible thing. Those uppity Shi’as think they run everything now. The military is now just an extension of the Shi’a militias and they’re forcing us from our homes.

Sunni Kurd: We don’t give a shit if Iraq is democratic or not, as long as the central government is too weak to enforce its rule in our territory. Oh, and we’re kicking the God-damned Arabs and Turkmen out of our cities.

Sunni Turkmen: You call that a democracy? How about protecting the rights of the minority, eh? Damned Kurds treat us like shit, forcing us to migrate south where the Arabs are killing each other.

I don’t think the US has ever attempted to stifle a pluralistic, Wilsonian/Rawlsian democracy anywhere. We’ve championed compliant dictators over populist rabble-rousers, sure.

I don’t disagree, but Iraq has a long history of being ruled by imperial forces who couldn’t care less about its ethnic and religious differences. Iraq has been ruled by various Arab, Persian, Turkic (White Sheep Turkmen, Black Sheep Turkmen, Mamluk, and Ottoman), and British empires. That region was never neatly divided into ethnically pure regions who didn’t have to deal with each other. Iraq’s woes cannot be lain on the feet of the British.

Was Iran really a “democracy” under Mossadegh? How do you define democracy?

I think that’s highly questionable. The Soviet forces aggressively responded to the miniscule pre-US backed resistance, and Afghans were dying or being severely injured by the thousands. Afghanistan wasn’t some far flung little country in South America. It was a major strategic location that would have expanded the contiguous Soviet empire and provided a launching point to further conquest. The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan weakened Moscow and emboldened resistance movements in other parts of the USSR that would later contribute to its dissolution.

This is a common misconception. We chose to supply, via Pakistan, the Northern Alliance in its war against the Soviets, not the totality of the Mujahadeen. The Taliban originated from southern tribes, and are the natural enemies of the Northern Alliance. Even when the Taliban “consolidated” power, their control over the north was always tenuous. When NATO invaded Afghanistan, once again the Northern Alliance was enlisted.

That’s true. Incidentally, it was a team of three US senators, led by John McCain, who visited Uzbekistan to investigate the 2005 Andijan Massacre. They drew a great deal of public attention to the massacre, and led the White House to question our relationship with Uzbekistan, eventually calling for sanctions and pulling our troops from the country.

England? Huh?

I’m not sure if populist governments that butcher their political opponents, imprison journalists and suppress all independent media, intimidate judges, murder or displace ethnic minorities, and strong-arm their neighbors into obedience really qualify as “democracies.”

I don’t disagree, but sometimes countries get a little push, as with Germany and Japan after WWII. My intended emphasis wasn’t really on whether we should “give” them democracy, but whether they want it at all. I’m guessing it depends on who you ask…

Shi’a Arab: Yes, democracy is a beautiful thing. We’re in the majority and democracy has given us a chance to turn the tables on our Sunni overlords by dominating the government, populating the military with our militias, and cleansing the God-damned Sunnis out of our neighbors.

Sunni Arab: No, democracy is a terrible thing. Those uppity Shi’as think they run everything now. The military is now just an extension of the Shi’a militias and they’re forcing us from our homes.

Sunni Kurd: We don’t give a shit if Iraq is democratic or not, as long as the central government is too weak to enforce its rule in our territory. Oh, and we’re kicking the God-damned Arabs and Turkmen out of our cities.

Sunni Turkmen: You call that a democracy? How about protecting the rights of the minority, eh? Damned Kurds treat us like shit, forcing us to migrate south where the Arabs are killing each other.

I don’t think the US has ever attempted to stifle a pluralistic, Wilsonian/Rawlsian democracy anywhere. We’ve championed compliant dictators over populist rabble-rousers, sure.

I don’t disagree, but Iraq has a long history of being ruled by imperial forces who couldn’t care less about its ethnic and religious differences. Iraq has been ruled by various Arab, Persian, Turkic (White Sheep Turkmen, Black Sheep Turkmen, Mamluk, and Ottoman), and British empires. That region was never neatly divided into ethnically pure regions who didn’t have to deal with each other. Iraq’s woes cannot be lain on the feet of the British.

Was Iran really a “democracy” under Mossadegh? How do you define democracy?

I think that’s highly questionable. The Soviet forces aggressively responded to the miniscule pre-US backed resistance, and Afghans were dying or being severely injured by the thousands. Afghanistan wasn’t some far flung little country in South America. It was a major strategic location that would have expanded the contiguous Soviet empire and provided a launching point to further conquest. The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan weakened Moscow and emboldened resistance movements in other parts of the USSR that would later contribute to its dissolution.

This is a common misconception. We chose to supply, via Pakistan, the Northern Alliance in its war against the Soviets, not the totality of the Mujahadeen. The Taliban originated from southern tribes, and are the natural enemies of the Northern Alliance. Even when the Taliban “consolidated” power, their control over the north was always tenuous. When NATO invaded Afghanistan, once again the Northern Alliance was enlisted.

That’s true. Incidentally, it was a team of three US senators, led by John McCain, who visited Uzbekistan to investigate the 2005 Andijan Massacre. They drew a great deal of public attention to the massacre, and led the White House to question our relationship with Uzbekistan, eventually calling for sanctions and pulling our troops from the country.

England? Huh?

I’m not sure if populist governments that butcher their political opponents, imprison journalists and suppress all independent media, intimidate judges, murder or displace ethnic minorities, and strong-arm their neighbors into obedience really qualify as “democracies.”[/quote]

You might want to read up on the CIA’s dirty tricks campaign (spying and surveillance, and the info given to the Conservatives) against the British Labour Party and its leader, Harold Wilson, during the 1970 election. His party lost in part because of it. That was around the same time the CIA was doing the same things in Greece in an attempt to depose Papandreou’s democratically elected socialists from holding power. There was no length - or depth - to which the US wouldn’t go to oppose leftist governments, including supporting the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam in the late 1970s, despite knowing what they were doing to their people. Try reading Philip Agee’s “CIA Diary”.

US interference in those countries listed above (there are others as well) hurt or prevented democracy. Were you aware that Fidel Castro was part of the strong pro-democracy movement in Cuba until around the time when the US sent arms to Batista and who then arrested and murdered many of them? Castro turned to the Soviets when there was no other option. And look at recent events in Nicaragua - near all members of all political parties, including the most rightwing in Nicaragua, supported Daniel Ortega’ re-election despite US posturing. They did it because the decade of US-friendly rightwing Nicaraguan presidents were corrupt, Ortega wasn’t.

As for Iran, Mossadegh was freely elected by popular vote. Or you live under the misconception that Iran was always a theocratic state? The fundamentalist muslims only achieved popular support and their brand of islam spread because of 25 years of the Shah’s brutality; just as the Cubans turned to the Soviets as the only form of opposition available, so did the Iranians turn to extremist religion. But since many Americans I meet online considered Augusto Pinochet and Ferdinand Marcos to be “democratic”, I don’t know your point of reference which may be different.

[quote=“Sleepyhead”]supported Daniel Ortega’ re-election despite US posturing. They did it because the decade of US-friendly rightwing Nicaraguan presidents were corrupt, Ortega wasn’t.
[/quote]

I’d rather support these right wing presidents than a man (Ortega) who rapes family members repeatedly.

[quote=“Sleepyhead”]
The fundamentalist muslims only achieved popular support and their brand of islam spread because of 25 years of the Shah’s brutality [/quote]

Depends what your definition of brutality is. For secular women, the Shah’s Iran meant miniskirts, liquor, and the Rolling Stones.

The fundamentalist muslims consolidated their power only after the revolution by brutally crushing any opposition to their rule (including students, leftists, and intellectuals that had originally supported the revolution). I wouldn’t equate this with popular support.

This is a really rediculous question. They do not want democracy. What fool wants some democratic screwed up system to come and take over in place of warlords and fiefdoms.

Democracy, bah humbug.

Uh, no. :unamused:

Mossadegh supported democracy to the extent that it benefited him politically. When the tide turned, so did he. He stopped the '52 elections when he realized the opposition was going to take the parliament, resigned, rabble-roused the people into violent protests and riots until the Shah was forced to reinstate him. He threatened the parliament with more riots if they didn’t grant him six months of complete control over the military and government to “enact reforms.” He then proceeded to cheat the British out of their massive investment in Iran’s oil industry through nationalization. It was an interesting demand he made to the British: Give us half your profits or we’ll take everything. I don’t doubt that Mossadegh wanted what was best for his country and would have eventually instituted a stronger democracy, but he wasn’t shy about using strong-arm tactics to coerce the parliament and other political opponents to bend to his will.

As far as the CIA plotting against communists and other politicians leaning towards the Soviet sphere, well, we were at war after all. Sometimes we had to prop up or support sympathetic dictators over popular enemies. Those tactics may have hampered democracy in the short term, but consider how democracy would have fared if the Soviets had won the cold war.

As to democratically-minded politicians finding themselves ignored by the US and compelled to side with the Soviets out of desperation, I’ve seen that argument made about Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lumumba, and others. Perhaps we might have done things differently with the benefit of hindsight, but I think we were often faced with the following choice:

  1. Favor a right wing dictator who is friendly to American policies and interests.
  2. Support nascent democratic movements that may or may not succeed, and may or may not be friendly to the US when in power.

If you choose the former, you take a hit on the soft power front by claiming to be fighting for democracy and yet supporting dictatorship, but you’ve got the intelligence and military cooperation of a nation at your disposal. If you choose the latter, you run the risk of the coup failing and the previously friendly government now your declared enemy. And even if it succeeds, the new democracy may not necessarily support you. It’s doubtful the masses of Latin America, Asian, and Africa would have allowed American bases to have remained or be built on their territory. Which would you choose?

[quote=“sjhuz01”]Afghanistan remains at is always has been - under the thumb of tribal allegiance to whichever local warlord has the most guns.

They perpetuate control by killing or making shady, self-enriching allegiances with whoever attempts to steal away control.They are distrusting of outsiders and willing to either kill or welcome&protect a foreigner based on tribal traditions and codes most “developed” countries do not understand. They aren’t going to change…[/quote]

So true. I’m reading a terrific book, The Places in Between, by Rory Stewart, a former foreign service officer from Scotland who chronicles an insane adventure he took, hiking across Afghanistan shortly after the “fall of the Taliban” to Allied forces. What a crazy country. It’s truly medieval and exactly as sjhuz01 describes: one remote vilage after another of highly-religious but illiterate people who take turns killing one enemy then another then another in an endless succession of violence, sometimes for good cause such as throwing out the Russians or the Taliban, but just as likely to grab power or to retaliate for past crimes, and often with severe brutality torture, dismemberment and the like. The country is awash with kalishnikavs and they lack the sense of morality that we have in the West. (before you criticize my last statement, please read a reliable firsthand account of the country such as the book I mentioned). So, good luck winning them over to peace, order, rule of law and democracy; it ain’t gonna happen in the next century or two.

Moreover, your question is flawed in suggesting Iraqis or Afghans are a unified bloc with common motivations. Sure, lots of folks would like peace, order and normalcy, but far too many want power at any cost and no amount of meddling by outsiders will stop them. Just look at a few snippets from today’s news to judge the likelihood of forcing them into peaceful democracy.

[quote] Three Candidates Are Killed in Iraq

Three Sunni candidates were assassinated Thursday, just two days before provincial elections. They came from three different blocs and all three were shot to death — one in Mosul, one in Diyala and one in Baghdad.

The deaths bring to six the number of candidates that have been killed.

The candidates in Mosul and Baghdad were killed near their homes; the one in Diyala, northeast of Baghdad, was pasting his election posters to a wall when he was killed with his brother and another relative. [/quote]
nytimes.com/2009/01/30/world … 0iraq.html

[quote]Afghan Presidential Election Delayed

Afghan officials said Thursday that they had decided to postpone the country’s presidential election until August, saying they needed more time to prepare. But the decision, which appeared to contravene Afghanistan’s Constitution, raised questions about the legitimacy of what could be President Hamid Karzai’s final months in office.

Azizullah Ludin, the chairman of the Independent Election Commission, said his office had decided to put off the voting until Aug. 20, which would give election workers more time to register candidates and set up voting machinery, and soldiers more time to bring dozens of chaotic districts under control . . .

But Afghanistan’s Constitution states that the president’s term expires on the Roman calendar’s equivalent of May 22. Presidential elections, the Constitution says, must be held 30 to 60 days before the end of the term.

Citing the Constitution, leaders of the parliamentary opposition to Mr. Karzai said they would stop recognizing his authority after May 22. . .

Mr. Ludin, the chairman of the election commission, acknowledged that delaying the election was not ideal. But he said he did not have a choice, given the challenges of the country’s harsh environment and the Taliban insurgency. Of the 364 districts around the country, 84 are not safe enough to hold an election, he said.[/quote]
nytimes.com/2009/01/30/world … an.html?hp

Swings . … misses . . . aren’t you sick of this yet?

You should have the decency to add "alleged’, or perhaps mention that the case was dropped, but I suppose that doesn’t aid your pathetic cause.

But wow! The historical revisionistas are out in force. So much so I can’t be arsed correcting the reams of twaddle in this thread. However, nice work, Sleepyhead for trying to check the more blatant rubbish. Unfortunately those that you’re batting against have no interest in facts, as highlighted by Chewy’s omitting key details above. Why? i dunno, but do you suppose it makes their dicks feel any larger when they posture with rubbish like this? It’s the only conclusion I can draw.

HG

Swings . … misses . . . aren’t you sick of this yet?

You should have the decency to add "alleged’, or perhaps mention that the case was dropped, but I suppose that doesn’t aid your pathetic cause.
[/quote]

And no doubt he considers Luis Posada Carriles to be “heroic” despite him blowing up a plane of civilians in a brutal terrorist act.

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Unfortunately those that you’re batting against have no interest in facts, as highlighted by Chewy’s omitting key details above. Why? i dunno, but do you suppose it makes their dicks feel any larger when they posture with rubbish like this? It’s the only conclusion I can draw.
[/quote]

If you pointed out the link between the Iran-Contra scandal and when the US embassy hostages were released, about the backroom dealing by Bush Sr. to encourage the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until after the 1980s election, he’d deny they were connected at all.

Patrick Moynahan wisely pointed out, “You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.” Unfortunately, those who defend false arguments know that ignoring or falsifying facts is the only way to perpetuate their idiocy.