| Times Headline today:
U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO
The plan calls for an 18-month occupation, trials of only the most senior Iraqi leaders and a quick takeover of oil fields.
I had been concerned that the Administration didn't have a plan, so this comes as some relief. It was nice of the Times to let us know about this. Also, that everything will be completed so quickly.
No, really, I'm sure we're going to set up a democratic regime there. Just like with all our other democratic mid east allies like...
Oh wait.
the big news was that rumsfeld/wolfowitz/perle lost in their bid to have the Iraqi exiles take over. thank god; that seemed to be a clear road to disaster. I do think you will see Ahmed Chalabi and his buddies get SOMETHING in postwar Iraq, probably in the banking/financial sector (the fact that he's wanted in Jordan for bank fraud will just make it more poignant).
as to the other points, here's my gloss:
- 18 months -- rather than representing the real expected duration of the military occupation, this is most likely how long they think it will take until they actually have a good idea of how long we'll need to stay.
- Civilian administrator -- almost certainly will under UN auspices, but probably not for 6 months. For some reason I have a hunch that this person could be Asian, although a Scandanavian is most likely.
- How Iraq will be represented on OPEC, "if at all" -- we're still not satisfied with Saudi support, so we're threatening them publicly. However it's not really in our interests to fuck with OPEC too much at this point. (I would think we could forfeit a governing vote in OPEC decisions for a limited period in return for a guarantee that Iraq will get a fixed percentage of production)
- "Democracy" - not only will we not establish direct democracy any time soon in Iraq, I don't think it's at all clear that we should. This is an enormously tough issue. Any US-sponsored democratic system, for instance, would need to include women's suffrage; who knows how that plays out in a post-socialist environment where islamic ideas will be newly powerful? The likely first step would be a new local and regional electoral system which would ratify existing tribal powers...let that run for a few years and see how it does before going for a national parliament.
- Expansion of Oil for Food program and maintenance of existing bureaucracies - the funny thing is that at first we have no real choice but to EXPAND the role of the centralized state in the Iraqi economy -- there are no other mechanisms through which to distribute the cash generated through oil sales. So the US and UN will preside over a huge new government spending boom with all kinds of attendant, institutionalized corruption.
- Court system - I didn't see anything about this. But if the US really wants to create an alternative model to Islamization, the courts are probably the most important institution that needs to be built up. If they are not enforcing Sharia, what will they enforce? Presumably the UN needs to provide a "starter kit" of judicial process and basic rights, and a mechanism to codify existing government regulations. There might also be a UN supreme court of some kind at the top of the system -- although ultimately all decisions will trickle up to the US general and the UN administrator. If you really wanted democracy to survive in iraq you probably wouldn't want national elections before the court system gets a few years under its belt...
Thanks for the rundown. As I've said before, we need to be putting that kind of energy into creating democracy over here. Yeah, we have "freedom" and can speak out on the Internet, but troops are still being moved over to Iraq so it's impotent freedom.
Nicholas Kristof's column on North Korea today talks about its leader's complete lock on public opinion:
The Speaker is like a radio, but permanently on and without a choice of stations. It's the electronic umbilical cord from the Great Leader, waking citizens up each morning and putting them to bed each evening with a mix of heroic songs, denunciations of "the American war-maniacs" and tributes to Kim Jong Il, "the greatest of great men produced by heaven."
[...]
The Speaker is a reminder that North Korea is like no other country in the world today. It was eerie to interview groups of North Koreans and then hear them praise Kim Jong Il in unison, like synchronized robots, a feat of hagiography unmatched except in Washington when White House aides give interviews.
Ha ha. How about, "unmatched except by Congress, the American media, and a pliable public." I don't Kristof goes nearly far enough to show how much we've come to resemble North Korea, post 9/11.
i think there's a gigantic difference and not to recognize and celebrate it is dangerous. yes, the bush team are very skilled at "playing" the media (cf Michael Wolff's current NY Mag column for a good take on this) -- but there are a huge range of other voices accessible to anyone who wants them. i mean, just look at the gigantic right-wing conspiracy!
the equation of US "propaganda" with totalitarian propaganda continues to be a big red herring for the left. at least it's better now than under Stalin, where lots of (most?) Western leftists denied that the totalitarian variety even existed.
having said that, it is definitely worth examining what difference the difference, in practice, really makes.
All the things you're saying "we" (US/UN) are going to do for Iraq post-conflagration sound like colonialism to me. Maybe you mean "they," and you're just paraphrasing how the Bushites are going to go about nation-building to get what they really want, which is a stable supply of oil.
All I'm saying is some variant on "physician, heal thyself."
One doesn't have to be leftist (Stalinist or otherwise) to see some irony in Kristof's anti-totalitarian rhetoric, in view of Election 2000, Information Awareness, and other downward trends in our own democracy.
Of course it's colonialism!
And by "we" i mean, all of us here in the US who depend on and benefit from the oil economy, i guess.
I'm no fan of the Bush/Ashcroft assault on civil liberties. but i think there's a difference between the power exercised over the media by "our" government and that exercised by, say, Saddam or Kim. To deny this, even rhetorically, seems like a mistake.
Maybe an even more pointed comparison would be between the press and other "democratic" institutions in South Korea and those in North Korea.
Just for the record, I don't include myself in that "we." Haven't we learned from the former European superpowers that colonialism doesn't work? We need to learn to be less like the Romans and more like the Swiss. Starting now, not after we grab the next big oil deposit. Sure, it would mean gas lines, civic disruption, all that shit we thought we'd be facing in the '70s but have managed to put off. Think of it as going cold turkey. I think we can do it. Too bad Bush can't put his 12-step experience into getting us off oil.
Oh, wait. I don't think he did AA. He talked to a preacher and Jesus entered his heart, or whatever.
|
U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO
The plan calls for an 18-month occupation, trials of only the most senior Iraqi leaders and a quick takeover of oil fields.
I had been concerned that the Administration didn't have a plan, so this comes as some relief. It was nice of the Times to let us know about this. Also, that everything will be completed so quickly.
- tom moody 1-06-2003 8:12 pm
No, really, I'm sure we're going to set up a democratic regime there. Just like with all our other democratic mid east allies like...
Oh wait.
- jim 1-06-2003 9:27 pm [add a comment]
and in Chile!! a democratic dictatorship!!
- Skinny 1-07-2003 3:36 am [add a comment]
the big news was that rumsfeld/wolfowitz/perle lost in their bid to have the Iraqi exiles take over. thank god; that seemed to be a clear road to disaster. I do think you will see Ahmed Chalabi and his buddies get SOMETHING in postwar Iraq, probably in the banking/financial sector (the fact that he's wanted in Jordan for bank fraud will just make it more poignant).
as to the other points, here's my gloss:
- 18 months -- rather than representing the real expected duration of the military occupation, this is most likely how long they think it will take until they actually have a good idea of how long we'll need to stay.
- Civilian administrator -- almost certainly will under UN auspices, but probably not for 6 months. For some reason I have a hunch that this person could be Asian, although a Scandanavian is most likely.
- How Iraq will be represented on OPEC, "if at all" -- we're still not satisfied with Saudi support, so we're threatening them publicly. However it's not really in our interests to fuck with OPEC too much at this point. (I would think we could forfeit a governing vote in OPEC decisions for a limited period in return for a guarantee that Iraq will get a fixed percentage of production)
- "Democracy" - not only will we not establish direct democracy any time soon in Iraq, I don't think it's at all clear that we should. This is an enormously tough issue. Any US-sponsored democratic system, for instance, would need to include women's suffrage; who knows how that plays out in a post-socialist environment where islamic ideas will be newly powerful? The likely first step would be a new local and regional electoral system which would ratify existing tribal powers...let that run for a few years and see how it does before going for a national parliament.
- Expansion of Oil for Food program and maintenance of existing bureaucracies - the funny thing is that at first we have no real choice but to EXPAND the role of the centralized state in the Iraqi economy -- there are no other mechanisms through which to distribute the cash generated through oil sales. So the US and UN will preside over a huge new government spending boom with all kinds of attendant, institutionalized corruption.
- Court system - I didn't see anything about this. But if the US really wants to create an alternative model to Islamization, the courts are probably the most important institution that needs to be built up. If they are not enforcing Sharia, what will they enforce? Presumably the UN needs to provide a "starter kit" of judicial process and basic rights, and a mechanism to codify existing government regulations. There might also be a UN supreme court of some kind at the top of the system -- although ultimately all decisions will trickle up to the US general and the UN administrator. If you really wanted democracy to survive in iraq you probably wouldn't want national elections before the court system gets a few years under its belt...
- big jimmy 1-06-2003 10:46 pm [add a comment]
Thanks for the rundown. As I've said before, we need to be putting that kind of energy into creating democracy over here. Yeah, we have "freedom" and can speak out on the Internet, but troops are still being moved over to Iraq so it's impotent freedom.
Nicholas Kristof's column on North Korea today talks about its leader's complete lock on public opinion:
Ha ha. How about, "unmatched except by Congress, the American media, and a pliable public." I don't Kristof goes nearly far enough to show how much we've come to resemble North Korea, post 9/11.
- tom moody 1-07-2003 6:38 pm [add a comment]
i think there's a gigantic difference and not to recognize and celebrate it is dangerous. yes, the bush team are very skilled at "playing" the media (cf Michael Wolff's current NY Mag column for a good take on this) -- but there are a huge range of other voices accessible to anyone who wants them. i mean, just look at the gigantic right-wing conspiracy!
the equation of US "propaganda" with totalitarian propaganda continues to be a big red herring for the left. at least it's better now than under Stalin, where lots of (most?) Western leftists denied that the totalitarian variety even existed.
having said that, it is definitely worth examining what difference the difference, in practice, really makes.
- big jimmy 1-07-2003 11:09 pm [add a comment]
All the things you're saying "we" (US/UN) are going to do for Iraq post-conflagration sound like colonialism to me. Maybe you mean "they," and you're just paraphrasing how the Bushites are going to go about nation-building to get what they really want, which is a stable supply of oil.
All I'm saying is some variant on "physician, heal thyself." One doesn't have to be leftist (Stalinist or otherwise) to see some irony in Kristof's anti-totalitarian rhetoric, in view of Election 2000, Information Awareness, and other downward trends in our own democracy.
- tom moody 1-08-2003 5:06 am [add a comment]
Of course it's colonialism!
And by "we" i mean, all of us here in the US who depend on and benefit from the oil economy, i guess.
I'm no fan of the Bush/Ashcroft assault on civil liberties. but i think there's a difference between the power exercised over the media by "our" government and that exercised by, say, Saddam or Kim. To deny this, even rhetorically, seems like a mistake.
Maybe an even more pointed comparison would be between the press and other "democratic" institutions in South Korea and those in North Korea.
- big jimmy 1-09-2003 5:24 am [add a comment]
Just for the record, I don't include myself in that "we." Haven't we learned from the former European superpowers that colonialism doesn't work? We need to learn to be less like the Romans and more like the Swiss. Starting now, not after we grab the next big oil deposit. Sure, it would mean gas lines, civic disruption, all that shit we thought we'd be facing in the '70s but have managed to put off. Think of it as going cold turkey. I think we can do it. Too bad Bush can't put his 12-step experience into getting us off oil.
Oh, wait. I don't think he did AA. He talked to a preacher and Jesus entered his heart, or whatever.
- tom moody 1-09-2003 6:16 pm [add a comment]