Spreading Democracy and Military Occupation

-The Contradiction That Plods On

So, from the point of view of someone implementing a command, this issue just can't be ignored . It has to be confronted with the same depth that an ordinary civilian should understand as to what the military is doing thousands of miles away in his nation's name.
We necessarily encounter questions because the concepts themselves lock horns in oxymoronic struggle above our heads.

Just how do you teach people to embrace and utilize democracy to better their lives when you do it at the point of a gun ? If democracy is indeed the self-liberating idea that is so plain for all people to see, why is there a need to intervene in a society to ensure Democracy's "enforcement"? If the presence of a despotic regime is seen as an obstacle to Democracy's fulfillment, as is the case in numerous areas of the world, would this now mean an invasion of say, Fidel Castro's Cuba , Mubarak's Egypt , the Saud Family's Saudi Arabia or that theocratic state, Iran among others? Who exactly interprets what is "democratic"? What would now prevent, say, Russia or China from declaring in the future that America needs to be "liberated" from "its government "? In these days of global interdependence, nurturing a host of countries where the United States needs to "enforce" Democracy gives a disturbing sense of false security.

Then there's the domestic politics that is certain to be altered whenever an invading army comes in to arrange what it deems to be the proper order . Now with the Sunni Baathists neutralized, the tribal Kurdish fiefdoms strengthened and a largely Shiite Iran-friendly parliament in place, how are we suppose to proceed from here ? Is this what the old bin Laden mentioned as the "done deal" in his latest audiotape ? How long will it be before the Iraqi Parliament votes to ask the US troops to leave Iraq? What will we do then? Or would it be un-democratic for them to do so ?

It does come so ironic not only for the ordinary civilian but for an ordinary Iraqi that America has to teach them the basics on self-governance when their civilization is the much older one, as those archaelogical findings confirm. So as we move forward to train them for their own defense , would not their guns one day for their own Democracy be trained on us ? .......No answers, so far.

But we plod on and do what we have to do.
13,391 views 22 replies
Reply #1 Top
Brilliant article. Very well-stated. I'm giving you an Insightful for this.
Reply #2 Top
There was a higher percentage of eligible voters at the polls for each of the three elections in Iraq than there has been in the U.S. in decades. Furthermore, the people voting went through Muslim rituals preparing themselves for death in case the bacteria made good on their threats.

Now you pompously sit there and write and article questioning whether the Iraqi people want to be free or not? I think that the least of those wearing purple stains on their thumbs understand more about freedom than most of the Americans who find voting too much of an inconvenience to actually participate.
Reply #3 Top
Ted, I am giving you an insightful.

We are not dragging Iraqis to the booths, at gunpoint, forcing them to vote and risk thier limbs and lives.

But yet, to hear from some....we are.
Reply #4 Top
Most from the middle east that I have spoken to reply, with some chagrin, that the majority of people in the region favor a theocracy of some kind and are amazed at American ignorance of the fact...
Reply #5 Top
Most from the middle east that I have spoken to reply, with some chagrin, that the majority of people in the region favor a theocracy of some kind and are amazed at American ignorance of the fact...


Could you be a bit more specific as to who you are talking about, like are they Americans or Iraqis? Just want to know.
Reply #6 Top
"Now you pompously sit there and write and article questioning whether the Iraqi people want to be free or not?" - Parated2k

No, Ted, I don't question the Iraqis wanting to be free at all and I'm not the least pompous about the questions I raised. I think they're valid questions lurking not only in Americans' but in Iraqis' minds as well which inevitably have to be confronted. It's part of an ideological battle and perceived from the point of view of an Iraqi who we would want to invite to join the family of democratic nations, the presence of a military occupying force becomes a potential coercion and may truly confuse them to sympathize with the enemy. It is a weak point that has to be addressed.
Reply #7 Top
"We are not dragging Iraqis to the booths, at gunpoint, forcing them to vote and risk thier limbs and lives.

But yet, to hear from some....we are" - MythicalMino

Certainly not.The response from the Iraqis who took part in their elections were in fact, encouraging. The use of "gunpoint" in the post is figurative to emphasize the US military presence (and necessarily occupation) which I believe weakens the long-term goal of spreading "democracy".I think the observation that - as the US forces gradually limit their activities on security concerns, more are done by the iraqi forces - has been noted in the higher levels of command
Reply #8 Top
"Very well-stated. I'm giving you an Insightful for this." - Texas Wahine

Thank you, Tex. Coming from you, that's certainly heart-warming.
Reply #9 Top
"Most from the middle east that I have spoken to reply, with some chagrin, that the majority of people in the region favor a theocracy of some kind and are amazed at American ignorance of the fact..." - Deference

I must agree with the questions raised by DJBandit, regarding the "most from the middle east" you have spoken to and what their bases were in favoring a theocracy. We hope you could share this with us
Reply #10 Top
Could you be a bit more specific as to who you are talking about, like are they Americans or Iraqis? - DjBandit

Sure, I have a Pakistani room mate who has lived in the U.S. for ten years, now, I've kept in contact with a French Muslim whom I met in college who immigrated from Tehran and is here as part of the student exchange program, and if you listen to the majority of Muslim scholars and religious leaders, they continually point out the need for democracy in the middle east while admitting a secular democracy is probably not feasible at thes point in the middle east.

Good question.
Reply #11 Top
Could you be a bit more specific as to who you are talking about, like are they Americans or Iraqis? - DjBandit

Sure, I have a Pakistani room mate who has lived in the U.S. for ten years, now, I've kept in contact with a French Muslim whom I met in college who immigrated from Tehran and is here as part of the student exchange program, and if you listen to the majority of Muslim scholars and religious leaders, they continually point out the need for democracy in the middle east while admitting a secular democracy is probably not feasible at this point in the middle east.

Good question.
Reply #12 Top
"a secular democracy is probably not feasible at this point in the middle east." - Deference

Even those points of view have to be taken into account as to what eventually will transpire as a future Iraqi government. To provide another example, at the time of the Cold War, UN officials considered the view that China, with its bloating population, could not be effectively governed other than by its current Communist government.
Reply #13 Top
Most from the middle east that I have spoken to reply, with some chagrin, that the majority of people in the region favor a theocracy of some kind and are amazed at American ignorance of the fact...


No, Ted, I don't question the Iraqis wanting to be free at all and I'm not the least pompous about the questions I raised. I think they're valid questions lurking not only in Americans' but in Iraqis' minds as well which inevitably have to be confronted. It's part of an ideological battle and perceived from the point of view of an Iraqi who we would want to invite to join the family of democratic nations, the presence of a military occupying force becomes a potential coercion and may truly confuse them to sympathize with the enemy. It is a weak point that has to be addressed.


What you both assume here is that freedom and democratic form of government somehow mean that Iraqis have to accept the U.S. model of both. We are not there to force anything down their throats, they are setting up a government the way they see fit. The new government of Iraq has already shown that they aren't puppets of anyone. They have made decisions that go against what the U.S. and other coalition nations would have them do.

Freedom and democracy merely mean that the people and leaders of Iraq are free to decide what those words will mean in their society. Remember, most of the colonists were not for a revolution or independence from England. The Founding Fathers met in secret, giving no voice at all to the people of the colonies they represented. Of course, once the war was over and a Constitution was presented, then the people were given their say. But if it was left up to majority rule from the beginning, we still might be having tea and crumpets at 4pm local time. ;~D

We are merely giving them the opportunity to choose, telling them what to choose is not our place.
Reply #14 Top
Sure, I have a Pakistani room mate who has lived in the U.S. for ten years, now, I've kept in contact with a French Muslim whom I met in college who immigrated from Tehran and is here as part of the student exchange program, and if you listen to the majority of Muslim scholars and religious leaders, they continually point out the need for democracy in the middle east while admitting a secular democracy is probably not feasible at thes point in the middle east.


Dont get me wrong when I say this but what does a Pakistani, who has lived in the US for the last 10 years know about life in Iraq? And keep in mind the word probably. It's a word that is used alot today to undermine any chance of moving foward towards a better Iraq. An example, the movie Cast away. After Tom Hanks was found, he was taken to a reception, where the sight of very expensive seafood did not thrill him and when taken to his hotel room he chose to sleep on the floor. What I'm trying to imply is that these people, the Iraqis, need time to soak in the idea that they are no longer under the rule of a man like Saddam, that thinking and expressing themselves is now encouraged rather than punished, that the chances of having clean water, electricity and a better life are not at hands reach, that they have choices now. It's alot to take in and hard to believe. after so many years of living a particular lifestyle, it's not easy to let go and start a new one. Specially when you might think that you might have to let go of things that you do not wish to let go. I too would fear of losing my religious beliefs when having total strangers controling my country.
Reply #15 Top
The irony of life is that pain is usually part of the solution to a problem. Like when injecting a medicine like penicillin, killing cows and chicken for their meat, locking criminals in jail as punishment (not perfect but does work sometimes), spending money in order to make money, the gift of life, hard work, exercise, fighting.

Sometimes pain just can't be avoided in order to solve a problem no matter how much we try. People must die in order for us to study the human body and find cure for diseases, to make space for those who are just coming to the world (imagen if everyone ever born was stilll alive today, talk about a tight situation).

This is in no way an excuse to kill innocent to get to the criminals, but life isn't always fair and sometimes a situation demands a solution and that solution isn't always nice. I do however believe that unity, understanding and comprehension could have and can solve many problems where fighting was and would be used as an option. But that almost seems more like a dream or a cartoon rather than reality the way things are today.
Reply #16 Top
To the authour, I'll give you points for asking questions but you've lumped alot of stuff together.

You've noticed a contradiction and have wondered why certain situations use violence to achieve peace. To answer your question there are places where it is desireble to have peace. There are also places where peace is not desired. Simply the pretension is enough.

A good indicator of where the attention is by following the National Endowment for Democracy budget. Link
By following their history, you find that these guys do wonders at funneling money to the local elite and destablizing the popular vote. Link These interventionalist guys make it a mission of buying off the popular vote, subsizing the local military, and handing out tons of brochures explaining their point of view. They have deep pockets.

What I hope you see out of all this mess is that countries who do not express the urge to cooperate with american interests are labelled "troubled". From here they can graduate to "socialist" if the country in question uses the popular vote to combat the finance/coup de tat campaign. Jean Bertrande Aristide of Haiti was such a victim of NED. Chavez was but fought back and won. Evo Morales of Bolivia and his grade 8 education don't stand a chance against these guys without help.

It is the success or failure of these pre-battles that determines the next viable opponent to go to war. And note, the targets are ones that cannot fight back.
Reply #17 Top
Dont get me wrong when I say this but what does a Pakistani, who has lived in the US for the last 10 years know about life in Iraq?

My original remark was not meant to serve as a barometer of the typical Iraqi living in Baghdad feelings regarding democracy and it's feasibility. My original remark;

"Most from the middle east that I have spoken to reply, with some chagrin, that the majority of people in the region favor a theocracy of some kind and are amazed at American ignorance of the fact..."

as I mentioned was an opinion I formed in speaking with some people (two of which I've described since I actually know them, as opposed to simply speaking with them briefly) who have actually lived in the Middle East. Their insight and knowledge of the culture is invaluable to me and I learn more and more every day how idiotic it is that Americans are even in the region and it is now extremely evident to me, now having spoken with these individuals, how misrepresented and misunderstood the region (the countries in the region; individually, and the region as a whole; generally) is by Americans via American media. We live in a highly sanitized bubble serving up popular propaganda.

Anyone with strong beliefs for or against the war in the Middle East or needs to do some reading and / or speak with some people from the region - it may change your mind in many many ways about what action is appropriate and / or profitable.
Reply #18 Top
Anyone with strong beliefs for or against the war in the Middle East or needs to do some reading and / or speak with some people from the region - it may change your mind in many many ways about what action is appropriate and / or profitable.


Ok I get your point, but have you spoken to anyone who is in favor of democracy and against theocracy, in other words the opposite of you friends? If so then I find it interesting that you would only take into account what the ones who are opposed to democracy say and ignore the ones in favor and then determine that thats what they all, or at least most, want.

I have read articles where muslims were asked about the changes in Iraq and what they thought about it and some were happy to see their people have freedom.
Reply #19 Top
Parated2K,MythicalMino, Deference, Slanderer, Tex, DJBandit,

Thank you for your insights. I see a common thread in all of them and that is, eventually, we have to leave the Iraqis alone and trust their destiny to their own political maturity , no matter how undeveloped or developing we may think it to be.

"...but you've lumped alot of stuff together" - Slanderer

See what happens when you lump a lot of stuff together ? Somehow, they get unravelled and better understood. Many thanks for the link.
Reply #20 Top
i can do no better than to second mz wahini's very astute appraisal.

who coulda guessed the democratic election process would provide islamization with such a powerful push?

what happens when pakistanis are free to vote?

so much for democracies being peaceful neighbors.
Reply #21 Top
" i can do no better than to second mz wahini's very astute appraisal.
who coulda guessed the democratic election process would provide islamization with such a powerful push?
what happens when pakistanis are free to vote?
so much for democracies being peaceful neighbors." -Kb

-Wow! Those two questions are enough for a whole new forum post. I'm sure they're on everyone's minds, but since everybody's "terrorized", we don't get to hear much. I like playing devil's advocate from time to time because it makes me think better and hopefully encourages readers to do the same. It may however disturb others who already have a fixed frame of mind on the subject. Regardless of the responses I get, I'm glad this post is in fine print, so that readers, whatever their initial reaction, could reflect back on it and see if they got the message. Thanks for getting the message.
Reply #22 Top
p.s.

as I write, Hamas has just won a landslide victory in the Palestine elections. Since the elections were overseen and judged as fair by no less than former Pres. Carter who was just as alarmed by the results, we may indeed get what we wished for democratic governments in the Middle East.