Because democracy has to come from the society itself. The own domestic elite of a country have to be for democracy. The struggle for power has to happen at the election booth and the result has to be accepted by all.

That is an interesting take. I'm not sure how you measure "domestic elite" and why you ascribe such importance to them.

But for starters, the Iraqi people do not speak with one voice. When you say it has to "come from the society itself", many Iraqis are already with the program. About 50% of them considered the US invasion to be a liberation. Isn't that a good enough stance?

Of course that leaves another 50% that we need to deal with, but that's a job that needs to be done sooner or later. After 9/11 it was a job that needed to be done sooner.

I assume that Iraqi politicians are considered part of the "domestic elite". At the last election they were dismayed by the result of the vote and asked for a recount. The recount showed the same result. They accepted the result. Isn't that good enough?

This is actually a good sign, not a train wreck. The Iraqi politicians know they are free to say whatever they want about the US. And the Iraqi people are free to say whatever they want too. — Paul Edwards

Actually no. The Germans, the Austrians and the Japanese were OK with the Allied occupation.

And yes, it really is a train wreck. Just think of the long term policy of the US: First the US had The Baghdad pact, then it had Twin Pillars as the Iraqi monarchy fell. Then it had Dual Containment after the Iranian revolution. Still, at it's height of it's power in the Middle East, the US created against Saddam Hussein a huge alliance including Gulf States, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, and so on. And why didn't they march back then in 1991 to Baghdad and free the Iraqi people then?

Let's listen to a man called Dick Cheney in 1994 giving the reasons just why invading Iraq is a terrible idea. Please listen to it, Paul:



But then Cheney didn't listen to Cheney and the US attacked and occupied Iraq. First time in long time the US started a war: last time it was against Spain, I guess. So the end result: Iranian backed Hezbollah fighters (considered terrorist by the US) are now armed with American Abrams tanks. Great job!



And now the American withdrawal from the Middle East looks like this:



Now I don't want to bash Americans, because they have done a lot good and especially in Europe are very welcome. But the US Middle East policy is just utter insanity of a otherwise totally sound minded nation, which can form alliances that work.

That is an interesting take. I'm not sure how you measure "domestic elite" and why you ascribe such importance to them. — Paul Edwards

Every society or nation has a power elite. The top administrators, the top politicians, the very rich people, the cultural elite and those in the media. This isn't at all a fixed group of people and is very difficult to define just who actually is in this group.

What they do and how they settle the competition for power is crucial for how the society works. If they as a collective believe that democracy is good and obtainable in their country, then democracy can cherish.

But for starters, the Iraqi people do not speak with one voice. When you say it has to "come from the society itself", many Iraqis are already with the program. About 50% of them considered the US invasion to be a liberation. Isn't that a good enough stance? — Paul Edwards

If you ask any person, do they want democracy and peace in their country, hardly anybody will say no. Yet just as I made the joke about the UN occupying the US to bring social cohesion to the society, things aren't so simple to do in real life.

And why didn't they march back then in 1991 to Baghdad and free the Iraqi people then?

Let's listen to a man called Dick Cheney in 1994 giving the reasons just why invading Iraq is a terrible idea. Please listen to it, Paul: — ssu

I listened to it, but I didn't need to. In 1991 the Cold War hadn't been won. Securing Europe was FAR more important than Iraq. We didn't want to do anything to spook the USSR. We wanted the USSR on our side and to not fear anything from us. Western security was and is more *important* than the more *beautiful* goal of liberating Iraq.

Regarding the Kurds throwing fruit at the Americans - I totally agree that Trump is an idiot. He should have stayed in Syria to protect the Kurds - Free Syria. He said he was only there to "secure the oil" (whatever that means). He is a total asshole for doing that. But Bush is not Trump. And the millions of Americans who supported the liberation of Iraq are not Trump either.

First time in long time the US started a war

Panama? Grenada? Haiti? Kosovo?

I'll come back to you on the question of the "elite" as I want to see what my Russian friend's take on that is.

We didn't want to do anything to spook the USSR. — Paul Edwards

In my view this was the biggest reason why US foreign policy during the Cold War was quite understandable and logical. But now, it's "We can do anything!"

But now, it's "We can do anything!"

It is difficult to know what the US would have done without 9/11. Note that at the time (2001) I was still trying to secure Europe. The Baltics were not in NATO yet. I didn't want to spook Russia with an aggressive foreign policy, even though seeing the Taliban hitting Afghan women with sticks made me furious.

So we don't know when (if ever) the gloves would have been taken off.

9/11 provided the impetus to fix the world. You can see the beans being spilled here.

I was also expecting Iraqis (99%) to be sensible and we could liberate a lot more countries. The fact that only 50% of Iraqis were sensible was why we needed to stay and do nation-building, to the point where we could hand the job over to the sensible 50%.

Every society has a power elite. The top administrators, the politicians, the rich people, the cultural elite and the media. This isn't at all a fixed group of people and is very difficult to define who actually is in this group.

Yet what they do and how they settle the competition for power is crucial for how the society works. — ssu

I'm still waiting for my Russian friend, but I have a comment. Are you saying that this nebulous group of "power elite" in Iraq speak with one voice? How did you ascertain that? I get my 50/50 split from statistically valid opinion polls conducted by the BBC etc. I've never heard of anyone surveying the "power elite".

Also, regardless of that, what is preventing an occupying force like the US from shaking things up and changing who the "power elite" are? Or perhaps bribing them? We need a formula for installing democracy by force of arms so that we can get on with the job now that we've had feedback from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our politics. — Kenosha Kid

I should also point out that the US doesn't "own" democracy. And it is the Iraqi people's politics that were being forced on the Iraqi leadership, not US politics. I believe we have far more right to help the Iraqi people assert THEIR politics than Saddam had to assert HIS politics on the Iraqi people.

Are you saying that this nebulous group of "power elite" in Iraq speak with one voice? — Paul Edwards

Of course not. But there are norms and customs, "way of the land". And things what is tolerated in politics and what is not. These either soft or hard institutions that define how people behave. So when I say that there is a collective understanding I mean this. Not that the elite can agree on certain issues and speak with one voice.

If in a prosperous stable country a general proposes a military coup to his peers, the generals likely would think about how they can break the news to the wife that her husband has lost his marbles. In a country rife with povetry and social and political problems and instability, the purposal wouldn't be so outrageous. So when you think about democracy, just think how easy or possible would it be of armed people just walking into an Legislative institution and demand power. Would it be outrageous behavior or things that just happen? It has happened more closer than you at first think.

Spanish Coup attempt in 1981:

We need a formula for installing democracy by force of arms so that we can get on with the job now that we've had feedback from Afghanistan and Iraq. — Paul Edwards

And how can the UN by force of arms install social cohesion and ease the racial tensions in your country?

Seriously, if a person points a gun at your head, you will be focused on the situation that a person is pointing a gun at your head, not as much on what the person is saying. He might say that he is just wanting to improve your situation, yet that is secondary and the feeling is quite different if the conversation would be had in a normal situation.

Anyway, if you want policy advice, I would say the best option is simply "To lead by own example and help those who voluntarily want your help." And if there are those who behave wrong, build a large alliance. You can get strange bedfellows working together, so try that first.

US and Chinese military personnel in a rare joint exercize:

Of course not. But there are norms and customs, "way of the land". — ssu

The "way of the land" in 2003 was that Saddam was ordering the rape of women and chopping out the tongues of people who spoke against him. I thought that 99% of Iraqis would have seen that as abhorrent too, and welcome a liberation. But only 50% did. How can you talk about "way of the land" when the Iraqi people were split 50/50 over a very fundamental issue of whether an external liberation is good or not?

And things what is tolerated in politics and what is not. These either soft or hard institutions that define how people behave. So when I say that there is a collective understanding I mean this. Not that the elite can agree on certain issues and speak with one voice.

There was no "collective understanding" among the Iraqi people themselves. They were split 50/50. How do you know the elite weren't split 50/50 too?

And how can the UN by force of arms install social cohesion and ease the racial tensions in your country?

Australia is already a secular capitalist liberal democracy, which is the "best technology" we know of. That's why I'm not gunning for an invasion of Taiwan or Denmark either. They are "mission accomplished".

Seriously, if a person points a gun at your head, you will be focused on the situation that a person is pointing a gun at your head, not as much on what the person is saying. He might say that he is just wanting to improve your situation, yet that is secondary and the feeling is quite different if the conversation would be had in a normal situation.

It was Saddam who was pointing a gun at the head of the Iraqi people. It is the US et al who instead got the Iraqi people's guns pointed at the head of their leadership.

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something? — Paul Edwards

Yes.

How can you think that 99% of the Iraqi people thought that Saddam Hussein as abhorrent and be surprised that only 50%(which percentage I think would be likely more) saw him as that?

If he REALLY would be despised by 99% of the population, then he surely would have fallen instantly, because the Iraqi Army and the security apparatus (and their families) were far more than 1% of the population. Every dictator has his support. Once there isn't any, then everybody in the regime will run for the doors, likely the dictators in the front.

You genuinely have to inform yourself of the situation in a country. Listing the massacres, the violence etc. is typically made for a moral justification to denounce the dictator. Yet it doesn't ask what complex issues are behind this. Far too easily we just divide people to "the Warlords", to the "henchmen of the dictator" and to the "poor innocent people" of country X. We (hopefully) don't make such naive divisions of our own fellow citizens, so why then would we think that foreigners are different from us?

How can you think that 99% of the Iraqi people thought that Saddam Hussein as abhorrent and be surprised that only 50%(which percentage I think would be likely more) saw him as that? ... why then would we think that foreigners are different from us?

I thought the first part of the above quote, exactly because of the second part of the above quote. If Australia had a cruel dictator, I think 99% of Australians would be against him too. I projected Australia onto Iraq. And again, if Iraq is different from Australia, that's exactly why we need to get in there and shake it up. After 9/11, the US needs every country to be a clone of Australia.

If he REALLY would be despised by 99% of the population, then he surely would have fallen instantly

Note that I saw an Iraqi opinion poll where Saddam was only viewed favorably by 5% of the population. That shows that 5% with automatic weapons are able to suppress 95%. I believed, and still believe, that with automatic weapons and a properly organized security force, it is possible to subjugate 99% of the population.

Yet it doesn't ask what complex issues are behind this.

I think you're overstating the complexity. It is just automatic weapons. The Iraqis actually tried rising up in 1991 and got slaughtered by automatic weapons. The Chinese got slaughtered in 1989 too. Both sides of WW1 were slaughtered by charging automatic weapons too. Automatic weapons really really work, and they're not complex.

We (hopefully) don't make such naive divisions of our own fellow citizens, so why then would we think that foreigners are different from us?

You can't see a difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? We don't have "henchmen of the dictator" in Australia because we have a democracy. They do exist under a dictator. It's not a matter of being naive. The government of Saddam was very different from the government of Australia. But I expected the people to be the same. In one respect the Iraqis were the same as Australians. Both of our countries were split 50/50 on whether the act of liberation was right or wrong. I actually expected the Iraqis to be far better than Australians on that issue, and in turn convert Australia to have 99% support for world liberation. I was wrong about that unfortunately. But I still think I am right for empowering the 50% of Iraqis who wanted to be liberated.

I already pointed out an issue with it. The history I set out is peppered with remarks as well. And your take away is I'm dogmatic because you're not informed and willing enough to put your own pre-conceived conclusion under review? :rofl:

The Iraqi war was wrong by many measures. It was based on lies, so there was no right intent and the war and sanctions killed more people than Saddam ever did. So it didn't result in a greater good. You're totally blind to what sovereignty means and apparently don't accept dissent from your values to the point you'll start wars for it. In other words, you don't even have half a theory and are willing to murder people over disagreements. Well done. You think reading a wiki makes you informed, you're just wasting everybody's time.

The Iraqi war was wrong by many measures. It was based on lies, so there was no right intent

YOU should have had the right intent. YOU should have been agitating for a war of liberation for the right reasons. There are tactical reasons why WMD (which was a guess, not a lie) was touted as the main reason for BUSH to go to war. But that is irrelevant. There were millions of people who wanted to see Iraq liberated, and THEIR reasons were noble, and THAT made it a just war.

sanctions killed more people than Saddam ever did

There were no sanctions on food and medicine. If there were any deaths due to that, they were on Saddam for not handing power over to a democracy. Regardless, even if I concede that sanctions were wrong (and indeed, to some extent they WERE wrong - I don't want to see Iran sanctioned either, I want to see it LIBERATED), the war itself was RIGHT.

So it didn't result in a greater good

It did result in a greater good. Many greater goods. For starters there is no longer institutionalized rape and tongue chopping. Iraq is no longer a country of slaves. And there was good for the US too - the US had an enemy convert into a friend. That is a prerequisite for world peace as opposed to world non-combat.

apparently don't accept dissent from your values

Saddam didn't accept dissent from his values that it is OK to order women to be raped. I don't accept Saddam's dissent that I consider that to be abhorrent. So yes, we need to go to war to sort out whether rape is right or wrong. I'm just surprised you would back Saddam in that war and seek to keep him in power.

You think reading a wiki makes you informed, you're just wasting everybody's time.

Quite frankly I didn't get the opinion that institutionalized rape and tongue-chopping is bad from a wiki, but apparently we need a wiki on it for some people. It was just something innate. I have spent decades trying to find out why others don't have the same attitude to state-slavery that I have. It's almost like the world is full of sociopaths.

All capitals really gets the point across doesn't it. Just the first paragraph alone shows how you don't understand sovereignty. Read up. I'll talk to you in about a year. Bye.

Based on this we can derive two goals:
1. End state-slavery as quickly as possible.
2. Minimize casualties.

If it was just (1) we were after, we could simply nuke all the slave states. If it was just (2) we were after, we could have inaction. But the combination of these 2 goals requires a hell of a lot of thought to devise a cunning plan for world liberation. — Paul Edwards

If we're proposing to be the world's surgeon, should we be careful to first do no harm?

"Just the first paragraph alone shows how you don't understand sovereignty"

Yes, this is another assumption. That women have the right to not be raped, regardless of which sovereign borders they were unfortunate enough to have been born into.

This needs to feed into "Just War Theory" and maybe you can read up on "Responsibility to Protect". It's even in Wikipedia.

"If we're proposing to be the world's surgeon, should we be careful to first do no harm?"

Sometimes when the police are responding to a rape call, they kill pedestrians. Does that mean we should disband the police, because they sometimes do harm?

If we accidentally get some things wrong, so be it. That should not be used as an excuse for inaction when there is institutionalized rape, meaning millions of women don't even have the basic right to not be raped. Or even worse - men don't have the right to keep their tongues in their mouth.

Sometimes when the police are responding to a rape call, they kill pedestrians. Does that mean we should disband the police, because they sometimes do harm? — Paul Edwards

Yes, that's it.

Some people will stand back and ceaselessly complain about well intended efforts to liberate enslaved people in other countries. But the very minute a bunch of drug pushing gang bangers take over part of their own neighborhood, they will call the police.

Another problem is that critics usually don't bother to compare the war and it's outcomes to what the reality would have been if there had been no war.

A million people died when Saddam invaded Iran. Many more when he invaded Kuwait. Not to mention all the Iraqis who had been killed by Saddam for decades. If there had been no war, some form of the above would have continued.

Ah, but the critics complain, Saddam was contained! What the Bush Admin realistically grasped was that such containment could only be maintained for so long. Neither the American public, nor the Saudi or Kuwaiti publics, were prepared to support such containment forever. Sooner or later the containment would have died, and then Saddam would have been on the loose again.

Instead, thanks to Bush, Saddam is dead. No more invasions of other countries. No WMD arms race with Iran. No more psychopathic assaults upon the Iraqi people. Not perfection, just improvement.

I am not against hostile diplomacy with rogue nations or despots who harm their own people. Pressure should be applied to non-democratic nations to see them meeting some standards with regards to human rights and freedom. I urge against conflating the ideology of aggression towards dictators like Hussein and the Iraq invasion, the latter is more complex than that. However, let's say the US is going to declare war on Iran stating that they're tired of seeing Iranians being mistreated by their government and it's time to have a democracy there. That Iran has been destabilising the region, they're a danger to themselves and others. Why would anyone be against that given that we are for democracy and Iran truly is destabilising the region and a threat to others?

I see the alternative as being an economic and cultural approach, let the nations of the middle-east drift towards Western ideals and culture and use diplomatic and economic penalties for nations that try to block this. Let the women there see how things are in the West and let feminism happen organically throughout the country, have the people demand better governance, more freedom and so on. Very few countries are immune to this kind of approach and most of them are due to Russia or China supporting them, North Korea is an example of that. Simply invading the country and deposing the government for however well it works in theory, has not worked in practice. The West's interventionism has simply had an appalling track record over the last 100 years and people are less enthusiastic about it as a result.

It's because people are also for world peace, war should be the last resort and given how ineffectual the West has been at solving issues in the middle east with force, you have to anticipate the worst-case scenarios for a post-war Iran. We can't expect a simple transition to a strong democratic government, cease with the WMDs, "thank you America" and that's the end of it.

WMDs are an example of the line being crossed, Iran can never be allowed them and if war is the only recourse then I'm for it. However, I think that a "liberation war" is not a great option if Iraq is our example, I hope if it happens again that some lessons have been learned from Iraq, that it might be done without anywhere near the level of destabilisation that occurred there, which should be unacceptable by anyone's standards. So I am not saying that we need to always follow the cultural/economic/diplomatic approach but I think that's had a lot more success than actual invasions.

war should be the last resort

Ok, I have another unstated assumption here. I consider war to be a tool, to be used whenever it is strategic to do so. I don't see it as an inherently bad thing that should be used as a last resort. I see allowing human rights abuses such as the rape of women to be the last resort.

I hope if it happens again that some lessons have been learned from Iraq

Now that we know that democracy can be installed by force of arms anywhere, even with Arab Muslims, which many insisted was impossible, Iran will be a cakewalk. It's very simple. You just don't disband the old security forces. It's basically just a decapitation strike. They get the same result they would get if they had a successful revolution (instead of being mowed down by automatic weapons).

lot more success than actual invasions

Let me make this very clear. If Australia ever has a military coup, I don't want the US to impose sanctions and dilly-dally about it for 23 years. I want an IMMEDIATE liberation. Just do a military defeat of the dictator's forces and then arm the good people (ie the ones who supported immediate liberation), and we'll take care of the rest. I don't care how many bad Australians die. And if the bad guys manage to kill some good guys with terrorism, I won't blame the US for it. Nor do I want problems in Australia to deny the next country a chance for liberation. If Australians turn out to be low quality people, with only 50% supporting liberation (unlike the 87% of Afghans), that is Australia's native fault, and you should give the next country the benefit of the doubt and assume they will be more like Afghanistan than Australia. Thankyou.

Sometimes when the police are responding to a rape call, they kill pedestrians. Does that mean we should disband the police, because they sometimes do harm?

If we accidentally get some things wrong, so be it. That should not be used as an excuse for inaction when there is institutionalized rape, meaning millions of women don't even have the basic right to not be raped. Or even worse - men don't have the right to keep their tongues in their mouth. — Paul Edwards

The accidental murder of an innocent bystander was the Greek version of the original sin. I read that somewhere.

But it's a moot point. The US didn't invade Iraq to save raped women. They did it because it looked like a good way to squash al Qaeda.

The US didn't invade Iraq to save raped women. They did it because it looked like a good way to squash al Qaida.

The US doesn't speak with one voice. Decent Americans, and in fact, decent people the world over, supported the liberation war (which is all it actually was), for noble reasons including ending the Iraqi holocaust which included institutionalized rape.

And more to the point, YOU should have been one of those decent people.

And it is completely unconscionable to stand in the way of the police when they are responding to a rape call. Or a tongue-chopping call.

I would welcome Saint George to come skewer all the demons and make the world perfect, although I don't think the perfection would last very long. I think we explore the depths if depravity for fun and profit and for many, George would just be a minor setback.

But for a few seconds it would be great. Anyway, the USA is no Saint.

---"Millions upon millions of people supported the Iraq invasion, including me. Why don't you simply ASK (not TELL) them (or ask me!) what their motive was? "...

I assume their motive was to interfere in other people's business for the sake of having their own way, reagardless of the cost in human lives and the cultural devastation. Then there was support for Israel, revenge for Bush;s father's failure and other factors. No doubt some people were fooled by the lies told to support the cause, as was the purpose of the lies. , , ,

History is not your side. It is now perfectly clear what happened.

---"Even if you assume that Bush is some sort of alien space bat who hates countries that begin with the letter "I", what difference does that make? Millions upon millions of people (including me) got THEIR policy implemented"

No difference. If they wanted the war they got it. He was the right man for the job for those who think unmnecessary wars are a good idea, as folks over there the US generally seem to believe.

I will never live down the shame of the British PM endorsing this war. I would apologise unreservedly to Iraqi';s everywhere for my country's involvement. But please note that Tony Blair hardly dares show his face in Britain anymore. We did learn the lesson. .

-

"If it was just (1) we were after, we could simply nuke all the slave states."

That isn't going to help you achieve goal no 2, is it?


" If it was just (2) we were after, we could have inaction"

That isn't going to help you with goal no 1, is it?


"But the combination of these 2 goals requires a hell of a lot of thought to devise a cunning plan for world liberation."

Might I suggest a good start would be to get rid of goals 1 and 2? But then what would be the point of any of this?

While it doesn't matter how many people Saddam killed? — Paul Edwards

Is this your philosophy: whataboutery? It has more than a whiff of propaganda and less of a feel of an actual philosophical position. Defend your own arguments; don't just point and yell LOOK OVER THERE when challenged.

And it is the Iraqi people's politics that were being forced on the Iraqi leadership, not US politics. — Paul Edwards

Yeah, I remember all those consultations with the Iraqi people. No, wait, that didn't happen.

It was based on lies, so there was no right intent

After further thought, I think this is where the fundamental problem is. It shouldn't matter if the intent is wrong. What matters is whether the action itself is right or wrong. If you ignore all the bluster, all they were actually doing was carrying out a war of liberation. They weren't trying to annex territory or anything. All they did was replace a dictatorship with a democracy and then leave.

The philosophical position should be to not stand in the way of a correct *action*. You should *support* correct actions, even if others are allegedly misguided.

Is this your philosophy: whataboutery? — Kenosha Kid

No, it's not whataboutery. It's the fact that Saddam was a criminal who ordered the rape and mutilation of innocent Iraqis, and by any sane philosophical position should have been brought to justice. The appropriate tool to bring him to justice was a war of liberation, which is exactly what Bush did and what you should have supported.

You should not have supported the alternative of allowing a criminal to continue committing crimes, and trying to stop the police from arresting him.

It's a very simple concept.

It is now perfectly clear what happened.

Yes, it is perfectly clear. The US et al waged a war of liberation. They successfully managed to convert a dictatorship into a democracy, something that racists/religious bigots said was impossible.

They took nothing, they asked for nothing, and they left. It was as pure as a war of liberation can be.