On April 9, 2003 the Iraqi people declared their independence
from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Media escorts did not
report to work, “Comical Ali” did not report to work,
and statues of Hussein began to fall all over Iraq.
On April 28, 2003, a meeting was held in Baghdad. At this
meeting it was agreed upon by Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, tribal chiefs
(as well as prominent exiles) that a national conference should be
held within the next four weeks at which an Iraqi transitional
government would be selected. The early stages of Iraq’s
independence seem quite similar to ours.
In 1776, the United States declared its independence. In
1777-1781 the Articles of Confederation were proposed and ratified
(our transitional government). Not until 1788 was the Constitution
ratified, creating our less-than-perfect government. It took almost
12 years to form the most perfect union the world has ever seen,
and we did not do it alone either.
It does not make sense to abandon Iraq in its time of need.
However, it would be naive to believe that Iraq will want the style
of democracy we choose. Fortunately, the United States is neither
senseless nor naive; the United States is experienced. The
rebuilding of Iraq will most likely resemble the rebuilding of
Germany after World War II.
This issue has led some people to the question: “Should
the United States institute a democracy in Iraq or should the
Iraqis be free to create their own government?”
In his column on this issue, James Moon said that the United
States is acting unilaterally and that this is “his”
(Bush’s) war (“Face off: U.S. will only support
democratic government, April 28). He goes on to imply that we are
completely self-absorbed and only want to install a pro-U.S.
democracy because it “means a safer America.” These are
typical center-leftist catch-phrases and arguments.
However, Moons’ cynicisms are not completely wrong. We do
not need another Hussein, and there are still reasonable doubts
about how far the United States can and will go to ensure security
in a new Iraq. Those points aside, his column is merely a
back-handed endorsement of an Iraqi democracy.
Rachael Sizgorich’s column is somewhat faulty as well
(“Face off: Learn from mistakes of past, let Iraq form own
government,” April 28). She states that the Bush
administration is backing Ahmad Chalabi. This is simply not true.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said about Chalabi,
“He’s not an insignificant figure. But we’re also
not trying to anoint him or anyone else as the future leader of
Iraq. … His status as a political leader is going to have to be
decided by Iraqis, not by Americans.”
However, Sizgorich does correctly acknowledge that “there
is something to be said about allowing a nation to set up its own
government.” This seems to be the intent of the Bush
administration, based on public statements made by Wolfowitz and
Donald Rumsfeld, among others.
According to Sizgorich, we can look to the emerging democracy in
Iran and see that people in the Middle East hunger for change.
While I believe they do hunger for change, there are hardly
“small steps toward democracy” being taken. They lack
basic freedoms. They do not believe in the freedom of speech, and
dissenters often casually disappear. If you are waiting for a
democracy in Iran, here is some advice: Don’t hold your
breath.
Sizgorich also talks about the failed post-World War I German
government. She says, “such is the case in Iraq.” This
comparison is wrong, as the U.S. handling of Germany after World
War II, not World War I, more closely resembles the handling of
Iraq today.
Hitler rose to the helm in a democracy. This was possible
because of the lack of help received in rebuilding Germany after
World War I. His party was a socialist worker party and though he
“won” an election, he really took and held his
leadership position by force. Iraq was also a former democratic
government (Republic). Hussein, like Hitler, also held control by
force. His vehicle was the socialist Baath party.
Like post-World War II Germany, Iraq was filled with mass
looting. Post-war Germany was also marked by U.S. occupation.
America created a Constabulary Unit that was active from 1946 to
1952. The purpose was not to create a government, but to help
stabilize a government. When help was no longer needed, the United
States left.
We are not setting out to make a pro-American democracy in Iraq
(it is a nice thought though). Rather, we are trying to set up a
stable democratic government like we did in Germany ““ a
government that will not cause any more trouble for the United
States or the world.
Indeed, we should learn from the past. Tyrants fight tyrants,
tyrants fight democracies, and democracies fight tyrants. However,
democracies do not typically fight each other. Therefore, it is in
our interest and in the world’s interest for a democracy of
sorts to emerge in Iraq. But it is the responsibility of the free
people to form their own “less-than-perfect” union.
This process will begin within the next four weeks, and the United
States will be present to help ensure the security of the new
state.
Garthoffner is a second-year, computer science student.