Centerfield

Democratizing Iraq (and, eventually, the Middle East) is the primary reason for this military endeavor. It can work. We just have to make sure that the final result doesn't look like an American puppet government, otherwise the Iraqi people will reject it outright.

I agree that the political situation there is more serious than the military one. These are a people who have been oppressed by a tyrant for decades. It's not going to get fixed overnight. But I think maintaining an early withdrawal of the bulk of our troops is a good policy. That way we can work behind the scenes to make sure a democratic government is formed while Iraqis believe they are choosing their form of government instead of being told what to do by the U.S.

It takes time for democracy to take root. It took 30 years in South Korea.

I think that we need to reconsider the June 30 turnover date. It seems to me that date is driven by domestic political considerations more than the reality on the ground in Iraq.

One important thing to note given the heightened concern over recent events in Iraq is this: when we first invaded, we made a conscious strategic decision to skirt some possible regions of conflict in order to assume general control quickly. By doing so, we only deferred the conflict, we didn't avoid it. Given this context, recent events are still disappointing and worthy of concern, but not especially surprising.

Nevertheless, politically we are deep in the heart of paradox land regarding the merits of various courses of action in Iraq.If we don't give the nascent Iraqi government enough rope, , we become even moreso the focus of the populace's ire. If we give them too much, they may devolve into chaos.

I am not of the realpolitik opinion here that it's OK to expect democratization to fail as long as the new Iraq is not overtly hostile. Deserting Iraq to its own devices would be an abandonment of those inside Iraq that we sought as allies and promised a democratic future. It would reinforce the view that we intervene only in our self-interests and that the high ideals we occasionally speak of are mere window dressing. This would utterly collapse any moral rationale we have for carrrying the fight against terror to other places.

Let's be careful not to conflate the planned june 30 transition with troop withdrawal. We shouldn't withdraw troops in substantial numbers unless we are fairly comfortable that we're not creating a vacuum for islamofascists to fill.

As far as the sovereignty date goes, I could see tweaking it if absolutely necessary, but I have the feeling that we're in a spot we're it's probably wiser to let the fledging try to fly than to keep it tied too tightly to our apron strings.

I think there's some merit to the idea that the rise in opposition violence is a response to the impending transfer of sovereignty. Opposition hope for gaining power lies in keeping the US as the focal point of anger as well as in denying power and legitimacy to the (moderate and or pragmatic)political forces that chose to work with us.

I think it's WAY to soon to declare democratization a loser. Even if it's a success, it's not going to look much like America any time soon. We'll know a lot better about where Iraq is headed when they replace the interim constitution with some other document.

I think it is assinine to assume that Democracy can happen over night. At the same time, I do not see any other good reason for the Iraq War other than bringing Democracy to the Middle East. If that is not the case than I would support removing the troops tomorrow.

The June deadline is not a complete end to the American existance in Iraq, I think it is simply the date we will no longer control the government, isn't it? This is a completely appropriate policy in my book... we have to eventually start the process of relinquishing control... waiting for the perfect time will mean an endless occupation. Furthermore, I think listening to news reports to develop an opinion on what is the state of Iraq, is foolish. Would it be news if everything was fine?

If Kerry where to support placing any other form of government in Iraq than a democratic one, which he will not, he would lose the election in a landslide. Personally, I think he and Bush should be listening to McCain, who is the only person in Washington that has made sense to me on this issue.

I've heard the distinction between "turning over contol" to Iraq at the end of June and the withdrawing of troops quite a bit lately, and have to feel a bit cynical. If we're keeping a substantial numnber of troops in Iraq, exactly what kind of control are we ceding to the civilian government? We're certainly not going to be placing authority over US troops in the hands of the Iraqis, and we are still going to insist on them working toward creating a democracy, so the idea that we're turning over any meaningful control seems a pleasant fiction. I just have to wonder if the people of Iraq and in the international community are going to be willing to suspend their disbelief to see it that way. I fear what Staunch Moderate warns against: that whatever government comes to power is seen as a US puppet regime, and all the resentment over the necessary democratic growing pains will be directed at us.

Yup, Jeremy, you're right if you're suggesting that this is a finesse, there's no doubt about it. But it is nevertheless true that we plan to turn over sovereignty but that we haven't said the troops are coming home at the same time. So, the distinction is there, it's what we're going to try to do.

And yup, it's something of a catch-22, the same conundrum that has been faced before. Those who have chosen to work with us will be accused of being collaborators, this is nothing new. We'll be regarded as puppeteers. But to carry that analogy a little farther, in the end the majority of people who just want a better life, some opportunity, justice, and stability, these people care more about the quality of the puppet show than who is pulling the strings.

I don't see that there's much to quarrel with in the idea of a gradual pullback as circumstances allow or dictate. You are right about the flaws, but everyone knows them, and no one has a better plan( at least as far as I know, unless you honestly count not getting involved in the first place worth discussing at this point. I don't.)

And remember that we still have troops in Japan and Germany, and South Korea, too, I think. And in those cases, the natives couldn't wait for us to get out of their way in the beginning. They may be resented by some now, but not all. I'm sure that prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, West Germans must have regarded us with at least some sense of positivity.

So yeah, there is going to be continuing resentment towards us. That is a virtual given. It's even a given regardless of what we do. Even those who ascribe nothing but the highest moral sense to our actions (not me BTW) recognize that it's foolish to expect fawning gratitude. As long as we are the world's pre-eminent power, most if not all of our actions will be viewed with resentment, pretty much NO MATTER WHAT THOSE ACTIONS ARE.

I don't see the American public as being invested in the creation of a democracy in Iraq. We do have an investment in creating an Iraq that is no threat to us.

Mathew clearly thinks I'm wrong, but I think Kerry needs to get to the right of Bush on Iraq, at least in terms of embracing realpolitik rather than Wilsonianism.

It look Latin America a long time go move beyond cycling between democracy and dictatorship. It looks like democracy is firmly entrenched. Some of the non-Arab Muslim countries are in the earlier Latin American stage of having unstable democracies that are sometimes overthrown by the Army. Even if we do pull off a democratic election in Iraq, it's liable to be an unstable democracy vulnerable to overthrow. I don't see how that guarantees our national security.

Rick,

You make a strong argument... I don't see the politics of it working out though. The American public or the world just isn't going to stand for a policy in Iraq that is anymore right than it is at present time, and we cannot continue the war on terrorism without more help from the international community than we have already got.

The bottom line is that democracy cannot be imposed--it must be earned. We can't lose sight of this fact. Afghanistan is more likely to embrace democracy than Iraq. I fear that the Civil War is looming in Iraq. But unlike our Civil War, there will be many players, including Iran and Syria by proxy and Turkey in fact. I think the lesson is that we had enormous goodwill built up in that just about every country in the world was willing to support us after 9/11 and we could have cleaned out Afghanistan once and for all--somehow, we squandered the opportunity on Iraq, which really didn't post an imminent threat. We could bear 10x the casualty rate we've had in Afghanistan because that's where the enemy resided--Saddam? Perhaps not so compelling a case. . .

what support? seems a pittance during the most supported of wars