Democracy in Iraq "under review"?

seaeagle · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:33 am Post subject: Democracy in Iraq "under review"?

Harry Shearer: Buried Lead Department--Goodbye, Democracy - Yahoo! News

Quote:

EDINBURGH--Thursday's NYT ran a story the lede (sic) of which was newsworthy enough, perhaps:

The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Of course, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, those are only numbers. And you can only use the numbers you have.

But buried right at the end of the three-byline piece are three paragraphs that seem to me to be distinctly newsworthy, especially coming in the wake of the "Bush frustrated" stories early this week.

Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq's democratically elected government might not survive.

"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

"Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect," the expert said, "but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy."

On its own, this information is striking: the last line of defense for the Iraq war, after WMD and connection to 9/11 crumbled, was the push for a democratic Middle East. If the centerpiece of that premise, Iraq, is to be consigned to "alternatives other than democracy"--i.e., a new Saddam to hold the fractious non-country together--that would seem to be big news. Combined with the "Bush frustrated" stories, it tells us something else: people high in the administration are beginning to leak like sieves. Can the circular firing squad be far behind?

If the Bush administration thinks that democracy in Iraq may no longer be option, then what the hell was the war for? And, what are the alternatives to democracy?

kenmabmcc

'Misunderestimating' Bush's Iraq

Quote:

Muqtada is young. He is well connected in the religious establishment, he hails from a prominent Shi'ite family and he has a large following among Iraqis. Like Nasrallah, he is opposed to both the US and Israel. Like Nasrallah, he is an Arab nationalist at heart who does not want to see Iraq divided. The only difference is that Muqtada wants to establish a theocracy in Iraq.

He lacks Nasrallah's charisma, however, and the flow of money and arms from Iran. If he pulls the right strings, though, and makes wise alliances, he could receive strong support from the mullahs of Tehran - something that the Americans wish to avoid at any cost.

If it happens, and Muqtada decides to end all restraint, he could immediately bring down the Maliki cabinet. Or he could withdraw his ministers from the government and replace them with non-entities, and transform the cabinet into a political dwarf unable to make any real decisions. In this event, what would govern the state of affairs under Muqtada would be the power of the sword on the Iraqi street.

One of the things cemented in the minds of the Americans after the war in Lebanon - because of the stunning strength of Hezbollah - is that they do not want an Iraqi Hezbollah. Muqtada already has ministers in the Maliki cabinet and deputies in parliament. He has strong veto power by virtue of his constituency and popularity among Shi'ites.

Perhaps the Bush administration dislikes the "democratic" results of the last Iraqi "elections".

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Gary66 · Joined: Sep 01, 2005 Posts: 8353

seaeagle

Gary, you know that the person spoke on condition of anonymity due to their close relationship with the administration. It was made clear in the article. Just because an insider does not publicly name a source does not make their information invalid.

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Even the administration will use anonymous sources to put out something to test the waters. Any administration will do that.

You just don't like it because they're reporting something you don't agree with and don't want to hear. That doesn't make it not true.

Gary, if it weren't for anonymous sources, we would know nothing about anything...good or bad. Like the old Communist Russia. Do you want that?

Gary66 · Joined: Sep 01, 2005 Posts: 8353

Gary66 · Joined: Sep 01, 2005 Posts: 8353

seaeagle

To be honest, I think the administration would have to be either stupid or ignorant if they weren't concerned about the future of democracy in Iraq, with the situation the way it is at the moment. It seems to have many other people worried.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

gcarlson · Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 4197