Q&A

Adam asks “Questions I would love to ask the right-wingers, if by some miracle they would listen to me“:

How much should we control the creation of the new Iraqi government? Should we only allow it if it’s the kind of government *we* want there? What if the populace would vote for, say, a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy? Do we stamp that out and tell them to try again?
For better or worse, we’re in charge in Iraq. So we have to answer these (and many more) questions. Right about now, please.

That’s actually a fine question and, in fact, would be a fine question for folks all over the political map to be asking themselves, not just right-wingers.

First off, I wish there were a clear guiding principle here, but there isn’t. Well, there is, to this extent: we can’t, effectively, ram unwanted and unaccepted political reform down people’s throats. Especially if we’re going to be there for as short a time as everyone wants us to be.

Japan, Germany, we could impose certain rules (not that much of a stretch for Germany, but basically a radical shift for Japan), but we were there for years and years and basically ran the place as a military government. Iraq, that’s not going to happen.

So the “rules,” such as they are, have to balance the multiple principles of:

1. Respect for the wishes of the Iraqi people.
2. The long-term geopolitical security of the US.
3. The political philosphy (liberal democracy) of the West.

I think those things should be able to work together, but I’m sure there will be some uncomfortable crowding around the edges where they meet.

I think we should certainly encourage a liberal democracy. I even think there are a goodly number of Iraqis who favor such a thing, which is good, because, ultimately, whether their constitution survives will be up to their collective will. If they let factionalism tear them apart, or decide to follow a new autocrat on a white horse, or throw the whole thing out for a new Islamic Republic, then after we’re gone, all we can do shake our heads sadly.

Ultimately, a constitution is just a piece of paper. The former USSR had a fabulous constitution, full of guarantees of this and that and other fine stuff. If the people don’t support it, or let it slip away from them, or a sizeable enough minority coopts power, then all the paper and traditions in the world can’t protect them. (Cynics, libertarians, or the left are welcome to throw in their comments about the current administration here. Others may address the long-term traditions of British jurisprudence that are under attack.)

Have we stacked the deck to make the sort of government we want happen? We’re certainly more in control in Iraq than we were in Afghanistan, where the government (such as it is) has some non-liberal overtones that most Americans wouldn’t care for — and where the current constitutional efforts are not producing a very positive document.

So what should we do? If I were Paul Bremer (God forbid), what would I do?

First off, I’d reread The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Plenty of good stuff there about constitution-writing (some of it more pragmatic than principled). Then I would try to use moral suasion to get the Iraqis putting this thing together to come up with something that will both make the West happy and keep the various factions in the nation happy — which, in many (though not all) cases may be the same thing.

I doubt we’ll be completely thrilled by what comes out of the effort. Heck, folks here disagree about the Constitution to this day, and after ours was only adopted with a commitment to immediately amend it. As long as there’s at least a jump-start of democracy and freedom, that’s probably the best we can do, or should, aside from keeping them in our prayers.

Note I’ve talked about just the constitution. Adam said government. I think all we can really do is influence, strongly, the first; the second will be up to the Iraqis. If they vote Saddam back in (assuming he’s really still alive), we might actively take steps. Short of that, though, even if they end up electing a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who resolve to immediately amend the constitution to turn the country into another Iran, we would be hard-pressed to legitimately keep from turning power over to them anyway, unless there was fairly broad agreement that there’d been screwing around with the election process itself.

My prediction is that the first elected president of Iraq will be relatively cool to the US, for popular consumption at least, but will remain allied to it and its principles. If the country chooses wisely, they have a good chance of succeeding in building a tradition to back up their constitution. I expect that even after a new Iraqi government is set up, we will have some military bases in the country, and that may provide some protection against a military coup — but I doubt we’d use those assets to block a popular uprising.

This answer has been wendnig its way all over the board (partly because I’ve been adding a sentence or two here and there all day as phonecons and deliverables permitted), but I have to go home now, so I have to wrap it up with that. Not sure if it answered the question, but it made me think at least.