Many people knew from the beginning that the tribal people of Iraq could not sustain a democracy. They do not have the civil infrastructure to support an open society, and are controlled by religious and tribal prejudices.
If the US will stay in Iraq for several more years, there is a small chance that civil society can be strengthened. But it's not likely. When the US does leave, next year or in 5 years, Iraq will break into full civil war. Either Iraq will be divided into 2 or 3 countries, or a strong military leader will come to power.
Should we avoid the interim period of bloodshed, and find a strong military leader to take control of Iraq? Bush's liberal idealism got us into this mess, hoping futilely to move medieval people into modernity in a few years. A strong leader could unite the country, and provide the stability required. The only viable option seems ot be dividing Iraq, like India/Pakistan or the former Yugoslavia.
2007-07-21 09:44:51 · 8 answers · asked by A Plague on your houses 5 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
I'm all for a military dictatorship for Iraq. It is certainly a better alternative to becoming an Islamic theocracy like Iran. These people have always been ruled by Kings and dictators for thousands of years. They don't really understand Democracy, or they just don't like it.
2007-07-21 09:52:41 · answer #1 · answered by Shane 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Partition has been discussed, but that brings along an entirely new set of problems. An autonomous Kurdish state to the north would immediately be in conflict with Turkey, an eastern state bordering with Iran would likely end up a surrogate to the Islamist leadership there. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-controlled Arab states do not want that to happen.
Then there is the question of how to divide oil profits, which is more or less the only source of economic activity that could sustain new Iraqi states. It would take decades of international occupation to stabilize the region.
Then again, the only thing that ever kept Iraq whole was Saddam Hussein's regime. It is a situation not unlike the former Yugoslavia.
2007-07-21 16:59:28 · answer #2 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they cant handle a democracy because their government is mostly ruled by fundamentalists. if a dictator rises to rule in Iraq there would be more problems, such as religious conflicts..the dictator could be a Sunni which would make the shites angry and so on and will cause more conflicts and deaths than what is already going on,
2007-07-21 16:50:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This ain't a video game. You can't just swap leadership with click of button without some problems. If Maliki ain't doing the job no reason to believe dictator will do any better.
2007-07-21 17:14:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was in war in former Yugoslavia, and you don't know about you asking.I give all my respecto guys whos along from they holms fighitng for peace. You can imagine how hard is to go in another country where is another religion, policy and everyting else
2007-07-21 16:54:29 · answer #5 · answered by tom 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone that wants to be called "leader" over there might as well bring their coffin to work. The US should pull out and let them do what they want. Stopping them in any way isn't possible.
2007-07-21 17:16:33 · answer #6 · answered by Williamstown 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Leave the middle east alone. Those people love to kill each other and have all thru history, leave them to do what they have always done.
2007-07-21 16:48:35 · answer #7 · answered by Iknowthisone 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow, your face is ugly.
2007-07-21 16:47:00 · answer #8 · answered by Jennifer 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋