Rumsfeld has trouble understanding the concept democracy

[John Corn]

From the BBC

In an interview with the Associated Press, Mr Rumsfeld said: "If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."

except of course in a democracy, where we dont say who can and can not get elected, it may well happen.

His boss disagreed, saying it was up entirely to the Iraqi people.

[Ryan]

[think Monty Python]No one expects the American Crusade!

[jrjcd]

it all wouldn't be that bad an idea, if we had, like, an idea what we wanted to achieve...lol
wanting to "bring democracy" to a country in it of itself is not a bad idea(not a great one either-all things considered-thank God our founding fathers set up a constitutional republic for us), but sitting down and thinking out the whole thing doesn't seem to be a challenge this administration wants to attempt...saddam needed to be ousted in the worst way and while i still have reservations about doing preemptive wars, the powers that be need to have a game plan that covers all four quarters and not just up to the first touchdown...i think what might be scarier to syria is not the thought of the usa turning it's mighty arm towards them(a daunting thought nonetheless), but the chaotic aftermath that is now happening in iraq(that is getting less so every day, but i suspect it could have been avoided alltogether)...

[waydwolf]

    An Islamic state ala Iran is NOT a democracy, but a theocracy. Two totally different things. We didn't do this to exchange one set of autocratic despots with another. No way in Hell should a theocracy be allowed as it has nothing to do with free choice. It is a matter of a group of opportunists putting in place a system where the people will be denied the ability to ever remove that theocracy without further bloodshed. Once in place it will not be voted back out, as there would be no voting.

 

[AllieVi]

I don't know how people like Rumsfeld will respond if there are true democratic elections and the result is, if effect, a theocracy. We said we want the people to decide how they will be governed and we'll have to live with their choice (unless Rumsfeld thinks he's in a position to veto it).

[lastmanstanding]

Freewill is a bugger. The Iranians are thick in the Shiite move to take control. Much of the Shiite unrest is coming from across the border.

Maybe they should break Iraq into three sections, but then the factions would fight over control of the oil.

If nothing else, I would love to see a free Kurdistan. The one thing all the different factions in the area seem to agree on is that the Kurds are some kind of animal and should have no rights or property. It would be great if we gave the Kurds the means to unify the Iranian and Turkish Kurds into a single free Kurdistan.

From what I gather, the Coalition is working very hard to muster support from the Shiite leaders to support the new secular government. They may have a chance to do it if the demonstrations are the result of outside agitation.

This is why Herbert Walker Bush didn't push to topple Saddam in 1991. Hopefully the skillful handling of the war (including managing the dissent) will translate into a favorable outcome. If not, we may have to give the Shiites the Saddam treatment in a few years, depending on how militant they turn out to be.

I agree with Waydwolf, a theocracy would be very bad.

[RandyAB]

I think one of the main problems with an Iraqi Shia cleric controlled government, is once Irans clerics lose control so will Iraqs. And then Iraq will be brought back into an unstable situation again. Their is already a good size movement in Iran to rid themselves of the Muslim Cleric controlled government.

[Ken_F]

Randy,

That's primarily among the youth. Iraq's Shiites are even more "backward" (if that is the term) than those in Iraq, because they haven't been as exposed to the outside world. In Iran, satellite dishes have been banned since 1996, but the law really wasn't enforced between 1997 (election of Khatami) and 2001. There was a lot of news last year about the Iranian government confiscating literally hundreds of thousands of satellite dishes, which were used to receive European and American channels like the BBC and CNN International.

In Iraq, satellite dishes were also banned for the public, and Saddam did enforce the ban--as you would expect, with the Arabic and non-Arabic channels alike being primarily anti-Saddam (at least before the war, when there was no U.S. invasion to criticize), giving voice to Iraqi opposition leaders on television, etc.

[John Corn]

More important than setting up a democracy is putting a Bill of Rights in place. It will prevent extremists from being elected and turning the country into another Iranian theocracy or Saddam Hussein-style regime.

[markh]

Originally posted by waydwolf
    An Islamic state ala Iran is NOT a democracy, but a theocracy. Two totally different things. We didn't do this to exchange one set of autocratic despots with another. No way in Hell should a theocracy be allowed as it has nothing to do with free choice. It is a matter of a group of opportunists putting in place a system where the people will be denied the ability to ever remove that theocracy without further bloodshed. Once in place it will not be voted back out, as there would be no voting.

 

It would be democracy if the Islamic leaders were chosen to lead Iraq in an election. It will be just as undemocratic if we select the leaders or overturn an elction if they don't elect the "right" people to office.

I agree with lastmanstanding on one point, this whole mess of selecting the new leaders is the reason George H W Bush didn't go to Baghdad in Gulf 1.

[RandyAB]

Just because it is a government run by a Shia majority, does not mean that it is going to be a Theocracy. With Iran you have a government that is elected by the people (Mohammad Khatami more of a moderate) and then you have the Clerics who actually control the country.

[RichW]

One of the traditions of a democracy is that, even though the majority may rule, the rights of minorites need to be respected. (Remember that, you Dixie Chick persecutors!). If Iraq cannot form its own coalition government with Kurds, Shiites, and others in full participation, we will continue to have trouble there. As was pointed out, this is the main reason why the elder President Bush didn't "finish" the Gulf War.

Allowing the Kurds to form their own country is a dangerous proposition in its own right. This will cause Turkey, Syria, Iran, and would be left of Iraq to have hostiule relations with a new "Kurdistan". However, I have no doubt that many of the Kurdish leaders expect teh US to support such a proposal, since they have been the most "loyal" supporters of US actions in Iraq.

[Bogy]

Iraq is free to have any government it wants, as long as its the one we picked out for them. The question is, will it be the handpicked government of the State department or the Defense Department?