Report: Iraq's transition to dictatorship --

[Alpharetta]

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp072204.shtml

REPORT: IRAQ’S TRANSITION TO DICTATORSHIP
Michael A. Weinstein: 7/22/04
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from PINR.


One of the American war aims in Iraq that probably will not be fulfilled is the establishment in that country of a stable market democracy. At present, it is impossible to predict the form or forms -- if the country splits apart -- that a future Iraqi regime will take, but it is possible to sketch some plausible scenarios.

.... skipping to his conclusion:

With Iraq’s three communities on a collision course and the only prospect for an effective state a standard Middle Eastern dictatorship, the United States has little choice but to play into the hands of Iyad Allawi. He would promise to be an Iraqi Mubarak, which would be acceptable to American interests.

Despite its military commitment, its economic aid and its massive diplomatic presence, the United States has limited political influence in the new Iraq. Any American moves that seem to impose political solutions will impair the legitimacy of the intended beneficiaries and will threaten to set off resistance by those whom the policies would disadvantage.

Those who believed that the transition would be the occupation under another name were mistaken. The future of Iraq is, indeed, falling into the hands of the Iraqis, and they are poised to create forms of order and disorder that were never envisioned by Pentagon planners.

[Ms. Clio]

1. Interesting article, but I disagree with some of its premises

Insurgencies and other kinds of extra-legal opposition do not occur unless a society is divided into groups with conflicting interests on which they are unwilling to compromise. Democracy requires a civil society whose members agree that they should all live together under a common system of rule making and enforcement, despite their differences on any number of particular issues. When such consensus is absent, groups whose aims are thwarted will not obey the rules of the game. That is the case in Iraq.

I think it's incorrect to conflate resistance against foreign occupation with "other kinds" of civil disorder or internal tensions. The Iraqi insurgents may also be in conflict with other groups within their society, but most of their energy at this point seems to be directed against the occupiers and those who collaborate with them.

dictatorship is a symptom of social divergence, the opposite side of endemic civil disorder.

Dictatorships can also flourish in homogenous societies, such as Germany in the 1930s.

All in all, I think he downplays the continuing reality of American power and American decision-making in Iraq--the U.S. isn't building (or has already built?) 14 military bases in Iraq because they really intend to let Allawi run things.

[Alpharetta]

2. I dunno about Germany being homogenous

maybe a better example?

My impression is Germany's heterogenous nature was capitalized upon by Hitler. He made the minorities (gays, gypsies, Jews, etc.) seem to be a threat.

[Ms. Clio]

4. Well, but if you use that criteria, then the U.S. is not homogenous

either? It could certainly be argued that there are even deeper internal divisions that could be exploited by a dictator, especially racial divisions?

[Alpharetta]

6. I agree with that.

and it is true to a degree, that repressive forces in the U.S. are leveraging our ethnic and cultural diversity to their own advantage

(edited to add "and cultural")

[Alpharetta]

3. other responses

but most of their energy at this point seems to be directed against the occupiers and those who collaborate with them.
I don't know if we know that. We've seen reports of kidnappings and intimidation of doctors and scientists. We don't know if the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and non-political leaders is because they are cooperating with the U.S. It's possible those victims were non-aligned.

All in all, I think he downplays the continuing reality of American power and American decision-making in Iraq--the U.S. isn't building (or has already built?) 14 military bases in Iraq because they really intend to let Allawi run things.
I've seen it argued our extended military presence in Iraq has less to do with running Iraq and more to do with projecting military influence on the rest of the Middle East. I wouldn't be surprised if Allawi is allowed to do as he pleases as long as Iraq can be leveraged to keep the pentagon money flowing to Halliburton, Bechtel, et. al.

[Ms. Clio]

5. I was thinking about the police and the councilors who have been killed

Most of the insurgent attacks seem to be against such targets.

As far as the scientists, etc., I am not so sure those are not the work of the U.S., like Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, or death squads in Central America.

I agree that the goal was not just controlling Iraq, but projecting power in the region.