Sec of State Office says Democracy not in Plans for Iraq
I found this pretty interesting. You can't get clearer than this, since it's a direct statement from the man responsible for coming up with the post-war Iraqi government:
[quote]Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, said that in the event of a successful invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military would probably remain as an occupying force for about 2 years. Statements made during the briefing revealed that the Bush administration was not aiming for a post-Saddam government that would be a true democracy. For example, Grossman explicitly stated that decisions regarding Iraq’s post-war government would be based on U.S. interests. “While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us,” he told the senators, “the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.” Pressed for details on how Iraq’s oil industry would be managed and what the war and occupation costs would be, the two Administration officials provides no clear answers. [Reuters, 2/11/03] <hr></blockquote>
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote]Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, said that in the event of a successful invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military would probably remain as an occupying force for about 2 years. Statements made during the briefing revealed that the Bush administration was not aiming for a post-Saddam government that would be a true democracy. For example, Grossman explicitly stated that decisions regarding Iraq’s post-war government would be based on U.S. interests. “While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us,” he told the senators, “the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.” Pressed for details on how Iraq’s oil industry would be managed and what the war and occupation costs would be, the two Administration officials provides no clear answers. [Reuters, 2/11/03] <hr></blockquote>
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Comments
<strong>Yawn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. This is hardly newsworthy. Perhaps a bit more honest than normally but still...
It's pretty newsworthy for AI considering so many people here have preached that we should go to war in order to make Iraq democratic (which isn't realistic anyway).
It also shows that simple 'regime change' is not the goal either, even though this is what is expressed. Ruling a country according to 'what is in the national interest of the United States' is quite the opposite of liberating a people from a dictorial ruler. It's simply replacing a domestic non-democratic government with a foreign one.
"But the US doesn't do the same horrible things Saddam does, like extrajudicial killings," some might say. But of course we do, silly. As Bush bragged:
[quote]...many others have met a different fate. Let me put it this way. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies.<hr></blockquote>
If americans are all like scott then they don't have any integrity either. It wasn't too long ago you were railing on me for being 'anti-democracy' and thus 'anti-american' for pointing out the BS leading up to this war. In light of this, I am pro self-rule, which is closer to democracy than what is being proposed.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
I know people who oppose a war, or who are uneasy about it, but you.....you just "take the cake" as they say.
Have opinions. Have strong opinions. Don't be a polarized Leftist.
There, I shortened it for you. Sorry I gave you so much to read. I forget I have to dumb things down for you.
Source?
I notice you post [Reuters 2/11/03], but when I looked at the source I didn't find that which you posted (without a link). I found <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2209716"; target="_blank">this</a>
[quote]He said the Iraqi opposition in exile would not be allowed to control decisions for all Iraqis. "While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States," he added.<hr></blockquote>
So I ask again: where did you copy/paste your text from, because you have it falsely attributed?
*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*
<strong>
There, I shortened it for you. Sorry I gave you so much to read. I forget I have to dumb things down for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Giant,
That changes nothing, and your name calling truly discredits your supposed intellect. Make a point, attack the issue, not the person. I see nothing here that is a "smoking gun" for your argument.
<strong>Giant:
Source?
I notice you post [Reuters 2/11/03], but when I looked at the source I didn't find that which you posted (without a link). I found <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2209716"; target="_blank">this</a>
So I ask again: where did you copy/paste your text from, because you have it falsely attributed?
*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not falsely attributed. I see you have found the same quote. What's the problem?
According to Grossman, the person in charge of forming a plan for post-war governance, decisions are being made according to the national interest of the US, not the national interests of Iraq.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
It's not falsely attributed. I see you have found the same quote. What's the problem?
According to Grossman, the person in charge of forming a plan for post-war governance, decisions are being made according to the national interest of the US, not the national interests of Iraq.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No ****ing shit :eek:
<strong>
No ****ing shit :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
so this has nothing to do with trying to make Iraq a democracy, nor is it solely to get rid of Saddam. But I agree, no ****ing shit.
'We' are going to invade Iraq, and replace it with a pro-'us' regime that answers to 'us'. 'We' will occupy Iraq for a few years. We will topple their government and replace it with a non-democratic, neo-colonial administration.
I wonder what the arabs will think about this?
Actually, I KNOW what they'll think. Anyone sitting on the fence will strap on some explosives. Israel will suffer. The US will suffer. The UK will suffer.
People will die as there is not even a pretence of bringing in an administration chosen by Iraqis just in case they don't like being 'liberated' in the way we chose.
It's the first time it's ever been articulated by the US uh regime and to Scott that's a big yawn.
<strong>It's not falsely attributed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it is falsely attributed. When you post something and put an attribution on it and when that attribution is checked and it says something different it is falsely attributed. It's the very definition of false attribution.
What is your source?
Propaganda is always better when you remove the context.
The real article says nothing of democracy, one way or the other, your post says the administration doesn't want democracy in Iraq.
What is your source?
A Marshall Plan is in our best interests for Iraq.
<strong>
It's not falsely attributed. I see you have found the same quote. What's the problem?
According to Grossman, the person in charge of forming a plan for post-war governance, decisions are being made according to the national interest of the US, not the national interests of Iraq.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm...so you would expect the US to spend billions of dollars and lose soldiers and then just walk away from Iraq? Sure, they could immediately set up a 100% decmocratic state, but would that be feasible? When the US/UN adminstered post war Japan and Germany, sis they set up democracies right away? Or did they take time to ensure that another dangerous regime didn't just drop into place?
Obviously the US will do everything they can to ensure a postwar Iraq is set up in the best interest of the US...It would be ridiculous and extremly ignorant to assume otherwise. The US has never said they wouldn't want a goventment installed with US interests in mind. You thought they were going to install his son once they removed Saddam?
<strong>
Actually, it is falsely attributed. When you post something and put an attribution on it and when that attribution is checked and it says something different it is falsely attributed. It's the very definition of false attribution.
What is your source?
Propaganda is always better when you remove the context.
The real article says nothing of democracy, one way or the other, your post says the administration doesn't want democracy in Iraq.
What is your source?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the first post includes a Center for Cooperative Research summary of the reuters article. What is in brackets indicates what has been summarized. In journalism, this is actually beyond what is typically done since the date was included. I didn't feel the need to provide the link since I've been criticized for providing too much info before.
Your comment about context is simply not true in this case. The summary is entirely accurate.
As far as including the sentence including the word 'democracy,' Grossman's quotes are more than clear. But he also contradicts himself in a way that further shows the intentions. While at one point he says he hopes people will step forward to be part of the government, he later says that those already willing to step up will only be 'listened to' and not actually in charge of their country.
In fact, the part you quoted even drives the point home more.
Grossman says that while the US will be 'listening to' Iraqi input, Iraqi governmental decisions will be made by a foreign ruler (the US) based on the 'national interest of the United States,' not Iraq.
Is that anything even remotely related to a democracy?
Furthermore, to believe that Iraq will be ruled by a foreign power (a foreign power it was twice at war with) for exactly two years is just crazy. It is a country whose borders were created by Britain without considering the people that lived there. That's why Saddam went to Kuwait in the first place! Even <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm"; target="_blank">Jack Straw</a> understands this, as do most people with a slight education. A true democracy is highly unlikely with the current borders. The Bush Admin also understands this, and therefore know that a true democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream. The reasons they talk about it are to help justify the war and to sell it to the american people.
Look at the Reuters article. The State department is being criticized by both parties for having such an incomplete plan. But pert of the reason the plan is so incomplete is because it hasn't been discussed publicly in a realistic light.
This is not the first time. One prominent author points out that America has a history of unrealistic attitudes toward the middle east. The 'unexpected' Iranian revolution was missed by the US (as well as the shah) because of unrealistic perceptions. And this was a revolution lead by large numbers of people schooled int the US! Hell, Look at afghanistan, an extremely high-profile country submerged in war, yet Americans believe it has been liberated and democratized. Afghanistan also demonstrates how short the american (people and government) attention span is.
Even Rumsfeld criticizes the naivety of US perceptions of the world in his new yorker interview.
So, anyone with any sense would see that I am not criticizing Grossman for the content of the comment so much as I am criticizing the reasons for war and the post-war goals as have been portrayed on TV and on the web. Universities and even some mainstream publications like the Atlantic, the new yorker, and Bulletin of Atomic scientists, to name a few, certainly don't portray it so naively, but reality doesn't fit into a sound byte or emotional ideal.
Like I've said in the past, I am very suspicious of simplified depictions of the world, like folks that say we are bringing democracy to iraq and folks that say we are going to take over iraq just for its oil. I am also suspicious of propaganda designed to appeal to an ideal, like trying to force a politcal system on another nation in order to 'liberate' it (this is what communists have always said, too), or emotion, like fear.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Yea right
Can we please have this member banned?
<strong>
Can we please have this member banned?</strong><hr></blockquote>
THe only thing me and scott have in common (besides being males, using macs, live in the west... forget it) is our excessive use of sarcasm and irony. Something that to my surprise go miles over peoples heads here.
Unless of course you were sarcastic yourself <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />