Allawi and the various community-based representative councils that sprang up were hand-picked by the US?

That was a good post, by the way. Given the current behaviors of “democratic” Russia, more people should be questioning the wisdom of hastily molding a country into our image. I’m glad you took the time to explore the issue thoroughly.

“I am content to know that the Coalition Provisional Authority did not have entirely its own way…”

“There never will be, nor was there ever likely to be, a stage in the evolution of a new government of Iraq which was not going to bear the marks of influence of the US.”

That’s precisely what I’m saying. The war has as little to do with “democratizing” Iraq as it did with the mythical “weapons of mass destruction”: it has everything to do with creating an American client state and staging ground.

I’m simply admiring the deftness with which it’s being done, and marvelling a bit at the gullibility of those who actually know so little about nation building, or democracy, that they mistake a gerrymandered election for a sign of national growth.

>that they mistake a gerrymandered election for a sign of national growth.

The two need not be mutually exclusive. Note this is just an observation that some good might come of it, not that it should be condoned everywhere and at all times.

To have gerrymandered elections, you first must have elections. AFAICT we’re still learning to run completely clean elections here in Canada; we’re just further along the curve.

This has been said before, but the USSR technically held elections, too. There is a big difference between that kind of fake election and the dirty elections in, say, historical ballot box America. One is false at its very roots, the other is a imperfect implementation of an otherwise solid plan. The situation in Iraq matches the former rather than the latter, for the reasons enumerated by b.

“If by â??democracyâ?? you really mean â??western civilizationâ?? then I agree the best we can hope for is a charade.”

And there, I think, you have it.

You can create circumstances which favour the growth of a culturally and historically appropriate form of participatory democracy. My concern with the present process is that the upcoming election may simply hand over power to a body that was essentially constituted and mandated by the US - a body that will have little stake in fostering the development of a realy democracy (which will inevitably mean a dilution of their power).

“We can make the same criticism about nearly any government that might arise in Iraq - that it might turn its back on anything which might dilute its power.”

Of course. But several measures might have been taken to make that outcome less likely, and were not. Thus the criticism.

“the US is going to have to settle for â??removal of Hussein regimeâ?? as achievement of its war aims.”

Quite.

As a management consultant, I usually specify (and my clients usually insist) that we define specific, measurable objectives before undertaking any intervention. And that’s historically been the case, in spades, for military interventions: the definition of “war aims” is the first stage of strategic planning. The US has steadily, and unsurprisingly, declined to define (or at least to articulate) its war aims for this intervention: it’s much safer to look at what was actually accomplished, and, in retrospect, declare THAT to have been your goal. Forget all that other messy stuff…that was just marketing to sell the war.

Strategy, no. Aims, yes.

“I would not have expected the US to lay out its aims”
“The US did lay out a number of aims.”

IrC, there’s a name for folks who post stuff simply to incite argument, without intelligence, analysis or consistency. Let’s try for the New Year to talk about this stuff at a higher level, shall we?

“if Iraq had complied with all the demands made by the US prior to the outset of war the war should not have been launched.”

This observation incorporates an interesting assumption: that the US has the right to make “demands” on a sovereign nation, then to launch an invasion if those “demands” are not met to the satisfaction of the US.

“I would not have expected the US to lay out its aims and strategy” is not the same as “I would not have expected the US to lay out its aims”. The conjunction of “aims” and “strategy” isn’t there to simply be ignored. Further, to lay out aims and strategy “in the broadest possible sense” is consistent with “The US did lay out a number of aims.” Let’s try for the New Year to comprehend correctly that which is written, shall we?

Military operational planning and decision-making processes vary slightly at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels; but the same essential properties and principles are omnipresent. Whatever initial planning directive or other instructions were provided to the theatre commander prior to the outset of war, aims and at least a broad strategy outline from the political authority would have been included. It is fair to speculate that not all of the aims have been publicly disclosed; it is unlikely that aims and strategy were not defined.

>This observation incorporates an interesting assumption

It’s not an assumption; it’s part and parcel of sovereignty. Also, the character of demands can range in flavour from, for example, “disarm” to “pay tribute”.

Of course; it’s your topic, and it was your choice to start the side discussion about war aims. My concluding remarks on that, then:

>And that’s historically been the case, in spades, for military interventions: the definition of “war aims” is the first stage of strategic planning.

Should be, but you’d probably be surprised to learn how often in the past people got in over their heads without a clue what they really wanted or needed to achieve or how to actually get from “here” to “there” beyond a vague notion. You in fact got it backwards: the science/art of defining aims and setting strategy has become more, not less, well-practiced than was “historically the case”.

>The US has steadily, and unsurprisingly, declined to define (or at least to articulate) its war aims for this intervention:

That was the assertion on which I was trying to shed a little illumination. It would make more sense if you emphasized “articulate” (the probable) and parenthesized “define” (the improbable), and “some of” should precede “its war aims”; the original is too all-inclusive.

>it’s much safer to look at what was actually accomplished, and, in retrospect, declare THAT to have been your goal. Forget all that other messy stuff…that was just marketing to sell the war.

I belatedly realize that was merely sarcastic fluff.

I continue to believe they knew what they wanted, but their vision of the steps required to get from “here” to “there” was wildly overoptimistic and based on simplistic and unreasonable assumptions.

As a communications strategy, it’s sloppy and subject to easy criticism which militates against “the message”. It would be better to be able to tick off the publicly declared aims and campaign stages as they are achieved. I agree people will buy the “big lie”. Large numbers of people to this day have completely lost comprehension of what was actually stated and claimed prior to the war.