An excellent article Con

If enough Iraqi leaders and voters dissociate the movement towards democracy from the presence of Coalition (particularly US forces) then democratic government will have a chance of succeeding.

Clemons should not be surprised that voters, including Sunni’s vote in the hope that their concerns (eg. personal security) will be represented in government.

There must be a large body of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who DO see the advantages of democracy as being preferable to “trible instincts” that pull Iraq towards civil war.

As the Shiites have the numbers they need to realise that they cannot “roll” the Sunnis simply because the Sunnis are in a minority. The Sunnis have powerful allies within Saudi Aribia and other states with inexhaustible amounts of money to either subsidise the insurgency or support Sunni political movements.

As you say an early withdrawal from Iraq may produce a “strongman”. Certainly I think the US would wish to install or encourage a form of government that was not free to become radically Islamic. The US would not wish to see an alliance between Iraq and Iran either. So, even if the US pulled out it would want an Iraq receptive to US interests.

I agree that “Turning points in history are not made instantly, nor by a spectacular event. They are made in a long hard building process.”

I think that while beating the terrorist in Iraq is a crucial objective for the US I don’t think it is pivotal in the “War on Terror”. I believe the “heartland” of terror threat is bin Laden and his senior partners. Many of whom are former middle class Saudi’s alienated by the “decadence” of the House of Saud. It could be that the main terror network is decentralised in Afghanistan, Pakistan and within Saudi Arabia itself.

COMMENTS PART 2

The Saudi common denominator, as revealed by 9/11, has been very much underestimated (almost wilfully so) – I won’t muddy the discussion by proposing why. So I think rolling up the Saudi terrorists (and associated Arabs) is the main game in conquering this terrorist outbreak.

Regarding an example to “rogue states” – unhappily North Korea will continue along its nasty nuclear path unhindered.

However my last points aside. I think democracy is the best vehicle for peace in Iraq and perhaps, one day, in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. If any country could make this happen it’s the US and then many Americans and many more Iraqi's would not have died in vain.

I think you've argued the case for democracy clearly and strongly.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

When democracy delivers power to Hamas, doesn't that undermine the claim that we must be pushing democracy at all costs?

DFXK

The Palestinian result is a victory for Democracy.

Hamas won an overwhelming victory. They've a majority. But there is also an opposition...an alternative. Hamas have a history of supporting not only a military attack on Israel but also they've built a network of social support for their people. They'd be aware of the reasons for their victory. It wasn't built on Palestinian's desire to destroy Irsael. It's based on Palestianian's appreciation of Hama's activities at ensuring their welfare, Palestinians desire to rid themselves of and to punish the criminality, corruption and nepotism of Arafat's Fatah... Also significant is a desire to see an end to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I expect a Hamas dominated Palestinian Government to attempt to improve the lot of the average Palestinian. If it does so in preference to sending bombers into Israel it will govern indefinitely. Fatah during Yarafat's reign showed little regard for Palestinians. It was centered on the interests of Fatah(Yarafat). Fatah will renew and re-invent itself and provide an alternative. It still has members of the calibre of Erakat and Ashrawi.
I expect an Hamas dominated Parliament to force the Israelis to not 'tear down that wall' but to move that land stealing wall.
Israel will teeter. It is no longer dealing with a corrupt despot and his cronies. It will look antoganistic if it does not accept the will of Palestinians and treats Hamas and Palestinians as it has in the past. The moment Isreal attempts suppression of Hamas, it's legitimate claims or attacks the Parliament of Palestine or members of that Parliament they will be roundly condemned by every democracy across the world...deservedly so...bombers or no bombers.

I'd expect a lessening of the bombers attacks. Why? Hamas won't want to upset it's electoral support base. That support base has already indicated it wants peaceful co-existance with Israel.

This could be the turning point for peace in the middle east and the watershed for democracy in the region. The US intervention in Iraq probably led the way.

Good luck to Hamas in Government.

Interesting and mostly well-balanced article this ... Until the last paragraph where Mr. George-Kotzabasis manages to lose himself in utter hyperbole.

"will turn the world of the terrorists and their state sponsors on its head" and "By defeating the insurgency in Iraq it will also defeat by proxy all other rogue states, as Libya has shown, and hasten the defeat of global terror"

Wow. A lot of very big calls there. Frankly, its hard to see Iraq becoming a Free and Fair democracy in less than 10 years, if indeed at all. So I doubt we're going to see anything positive coming out of there any time soon.

Secondly, sure Iraq being a democracy would piss off a lot of the terrorists - but Iraq is merely the current rallying point, Al Qaeda was carrying out terrorist attacks long before Dubbya was even in the White House.

Finally, and this point hardly even needs to be made, Iraq becoming a democracy will mean almost nothing to most of the despots out there. Why would the dictators of Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba etc. etc. care one whit about Iraq? Iraq is a democracy created through US invasion, something unlikely to happen anywhere else in the near future - dictators only really get scared when they see popular uprisings, witness the fear in Russia after the recent 'Colour' Revolutions of the ex-Soviet Republics.

the hamas victory says one thing clearly. The palestinians voted for people they knew were killers. whether or not they do lots of charity work, the voters knew they were killers.

I would like to see all western aid stopped, they would soon realize thier mistake. I would also like to see absolutely noone talk to them (except of course their terrorist state sponsers in the arab world). After being ignored for four or three years, and starved due to thier stupidity and hubris, lets see if the voters would still pick a group of terrorists as their representatives.

"Oh they might get hurt". say the leftist idiots. listen, how can they expect our help and cooperation when a majority of the population vote for terrorists. We have to show how much we believe the terrorist way of change is unacceptable. We killed millions with sanctions on iraq, most of you lefties would love it if they were still dying. Don't tell me we can't get their attention, both for how much we supported them with aid, and how disgusting thier attitude towards terrorism is.

Whenever we say or imply that these people might be legitimate freedom fighters, "the israeli's oppress them", what you are really saying is, "there are times when you can go and blow up a bus full of children, and it is morrally acceptable". It never can be. If these hamas rednecks had any morals at all, they would attack the army, even if the odds were against them. Surely thier vaunted God would give them victory, oh, thats right, they stole our God, and totally misunderstood Him.

Palestine has achieved "democracy", which is why they are now shooting at each other in the streets.
What would the Arabs do with democracy? They are tribal to the back tooth , take all their orders from a book written fourteen hundred years ago and have never advanced since then.
They will make a mockery of democracy, at least while the world sends them aid, but they will never live up to it.

Thank you fida for all your posts.

Democracy, “Direct government by the people”, where do we have that. Not here, not anywhere. Its fine to sit here and make judgments based on our theocratic or political views, but nothing will change what is happening in Iraq. It will go on and get worse, as it does anywhere belief systems try to enforce their ways. That goes for factional beliefs, as they are no different, they all want control.

Iraq will implode, as will Palestine and most other religiously controlled states. There is nothing that can be done except wait for the final curtain, the wait may be long. I think the final outcome may be a nuclear one. As others have said, they are already fighting between themselves, so what else is new with religion. Has there ever been a time when religion hasn't been at war with each other.

Everyone raves about how great our democracy is, yet we live in an illegal dictatorship. Our constitution states, and the chief justice of the high court agrees, that all our politicians have been elected unconstitutionally and illegally. The Australian constitution states, that our parliamentary representatives are to be “directly chosen”. Yet we are forced to use a biased preferential vote which makes those elected not directly chosen, but indirectly chosen. If you look at the US, you will find the same situation.

What it boils down to, is that our current sociological systems are at the point of collapse. They have passed their use by date and what we are seeing around the world is the final drowning carnage, always implemented by those that are destined to be bypassed by evolution.

Hamas, Fatah, Shiite Sunni, Jews, christian factions, all from the same gene pool, and all arise from the middle east. As the birth place of monotheistic religions is in meltdown, doesn't that ring any bells as to where we are being led.

I agree with KEITH, that "this could be the turning point for peace in the middle east and the watershed of democracy."

It would be unwise to decry the Bush policies in the Middle East because Hamas won the elections. This is not the denouement of democracy in the region, but its beginning. For people who were cognizant of the long term corruption of Fatah and its total neglect of the Palestinian people, it was not at all surprising that the latter would vote for Hamas, which had fostered health and social service organizations for the people.

Hamas in government however, has to keep its constituents happy, as the majority of them aspire peace with Israel. Moreover, Hamas cannot efford to lose the sympathy of the international community by persisting to be belligerent against Israel, and continue its terrorist attacks. Nor can it efford, more importantly, to lose the financial backing of the US and the EU, which is vital to its existence. And it's rather a forlorn hope, if Hamas really believes this, as some of its leaders have stated, that the loss of this financial support will be made up by the financial support of Arab countries. Once the conduits of its finance run dry, the Palestinian people will revolt against Hamas. And the dress rehearsal of this "revolt" has already been seen with the clashes of Fatah and Hamas supporters, just after the results of the election were made public. Hamas therefore in government, under mounting international pressure, may consider that a diplomatic demarche to its problems with Israel would be the best solution.

Thus, the chess game of democracy in the Middle East still has many openings, and is not checkmated by the electoral victory of Hamas.

KOTZABASIS

Go to my blog for more: NEMESIS http://congeorgekotzabasis

put this in the wrong thread before.

Alchemist - and here I thought your name was based on the book!

You may be right about the constitution, but I would point out that the constitution says nothing about a PM, only an unelected governor general ruling the nation, do you want that as well. As anyone who has studied politics in australia will tell you, our constitution bears no resemblance to how Australia is run.

Your ignorance regarding democracy shows how worthless you position truly is. We live, and have for a hundred years, in a representative democracy (not a direct democracy as you seem to assume). Direct democracy could never work, as there would be no stability of government. For your information, democracy is not just about rule by the people, it is also about the rule of law (which has changed the effect of the constitution), acceptance of capitalism (the right to own something), liberalism (inividuality) and equality before the law (not equality full stop). The fact you only recognise a fraction of what a democracy is, clearly explains why your veiws are so outlandish (hamas outlandish).

get an educatio

Themisticles, nice name and not a bad round up of situation. It is difficult to see how the hamas election could be described as a watershed for democracy, given the fact they have an army other than that of the nation state. It is also arguable if the palestinians really want peace, why would they elect hamas when things are going so well in the peace process. A few hospitals. If you believe this then you must believe the palestinians are one of the most ignorant group of people in the world (not to know that hamas stands against the nation of israel and therefore has little chance of developing peace). And truth to tell, they probably are, given that there are little services (schools) provided by anyone but hamas. Its always amazing how little the hamas, and the palestinian people understand of democracy, they are shocked that the west would like them to disarm. They don't realise any of the basic tenents of democracy (parties cannot have armies etc). Truly amasing that you would claim this a watershed for democracy, unless you mean the re-defining watershed. Perhaps I should start a party (and an army) and see if I can get the islamic ideologues out of australia (I do not mean the ignorant muslims, but their ideologue leaders, who the muslim people are enslaved to (islam means submission).

fida mae

One of the really significant things about Hamas and the election was that Hamas did not include it's position on the destruction of Israel in it's election manifesto. I don't think they would have won as hansomely as they did if they had. 58% of the vote.

The Palestinian security forces were Fatahs private army. One of the first actions of the Hamas government was to replace them as the security force but they also offered to include them in a Palistinian army. That's significant and practical. I think while initially the hotheads may rage, longer-term the pragmatists on both sides will prevail. Just as they nearly always did during Yaraf's despotism.

George, thanks for the vote of confidence...I'm often wrong...

:-)

FIDA MAE

No need for "re-defining". In Keith's quote, "could" refers to a possibility not to an actuality, and within the context of my post with the many openings nascent democracy still had in the Middle East, the "watershed" COULD become actual.

Themistocles led the Athenians to a famous victory over Xerxes, the Persian, however he died in exile in Persia after fleeing charges of perculation.

George shows the courage of Themistocles.

The US and Israeli reaction to the Hamas victory shows exactly how much they really believe in democracy. For quite a while now it has been merely a smokescreen for the doctrine of "we're big enough to do what we like". All this guff about "exporting democracy to the Middle East" is simply cant, and is about to unravel in a most unpleasant way.

The only way that democracy can be effective as a management system is for it to be voluntarily adopted, by a people who understand its benefits and are aware of its drawbacks.

We seem to have convinced ourselves that there is something special about democracy that can of itself solve problems the allocation and withdrawal of power, and of oppression of minorities. It simply isn't so.

Democracy isn't perfect. And unfortunately, the example set by some of the world's most mature democracies is no glowing tribute to its goodness either.

Pericles, "The only way that democracy can be effective as a management system is for it to be voluntarily adopted, by a people who understand its benefits and are aware of its drawbacks"

You obviously have been a keen history student. Japan and west germany are successful democracies arn't they. They certainly didn't volunteer. where people get such crazy ideas (democracy has to be chosen) is beyond me!

the idea that the hamas election is either a plus for democracy, or that the west is being contradictory in not welcoming them is clearly ignorant. state's have legal (democratic) armies, not revolutionary movements. Palestine is not a state, it should not have an army, whether that of a party or that of a state (which it is not).

the idea that the west is being undemocratic by refusing to speak or be happy about the hamas election is clearly based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works (the legal framework). These comments are more a condemnation of the school system these ignorant people were taught in.

the reason hamas is not welcome; they want us to accept them as a democratic movement, but their every speech and action shows they do not understand democracy at all. The west is bound to be taken as the bad guy by lefties who do not understand democracy and support hamas without understanding what they stand for. The lesson, get a real education system so the next generation of westerners actually understand the issues involved.

Yes of course, fide mae.

>>You obviously have been a keen history student. Japan and west germany are successful democracies arn't they. They certainly didn't volunteer.<<

Gee, it had completely slipped my mind that in the aftermath of WWII, reactionary factions in both Germany and Japan fought tooth and nail against democracy, with bring-back-Hitler resistance forces rampant in Bavaria, and we-love-Yamamoto bands of terrorists besieging Kobe.

You are right, I am not a history student, but even I know that the Japanese government in the first part of the twentieth century was based on the Meiji constitution of 1889, and their parliament was voted for - admittedly only by men over 25 until MacArthur got his hands on it. But democratic, it certainly was.

Meanwhile Germany introduced suffrage in 1867, and even women had the vote there since 1918, helping to democratically elect the Nazi party, as I recall.

Perhaps you were thinking of a different Japan and a different West Germany?

>>the idea that the hamas election is either a plus for democracy, or that the west is being contradictory in not welcoming them is clearly ignorant<<

My point was, and still is, that we cannot pick and choose the results we like or dislike from a countries democratic process, without being somewhat expedient on the notion of democracy itself.

>>the idea that the west is being undemocratic by refusing to speak or be happy about the hamas election is clearly based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works (the legal framework)... the reason hamas is not welcome; they want us to accept them as a democratic movement, but their every speech and action shows they do not understand democracy at all.<<

Were the elections democratic or weren't they? If they were, the west is not being "ignorant" of how democracy works, simply objecting to the outcome.

If they were not, someone should tell Hamas, as they believe they have the legitimacy democracy apparently bestows on the winning party.

Part One

Con: we suggest the Middle East rates more important things to discuss.

With present Middle East problems in mind, we should have our minds much more on little Israel.

1. Rather than Iran, Israel is definitely the odd one out owing to its illegal nuclear arsenal.

2. Not one Arab country is allowed to go nuclear. Does this mean that Israel holds a superior place in the minds of the Western world while the Arab countries including Persian Iran are regarded as enemies of the West?

3. A neutral overview of the Middle East at present leaves one with a cold shudder, first not only noting US airplane and missile carriers standing by in the Gulf, but also those 200 Israeli atomic rockets at the ready.

4. From our overall .position, still trying not to take sides, we see Palestinians outside Israel firing guns in the air after Hamas wins the democratic vote. But we already know that the Americans have rejected the vote because Hamas is backed by Iran and Syria.

5. Trying to remain neutral is even more difficult after the news that in extreme northern Iraq, now allowed to be called Kurdish country by the Americans, the Israelis are allowed a military outpost right close to the Iranian border.

Bushbred

Part Two
6. Once again our thoughts turn to the Israeli rockets, our anger towards America increasing, knowing that the rockets are illegal and only exist because the US secretly gave permission.

7. Why had the US been allowed to make such moves against the will of the United Nations? As Israel became militarily nuclear years before US became unipolar in 1998, it goes to prove that America has never cared more than a tinker’s cuss for the UN at any time. Some, say, in fact, that she still owes years and years of dues.

8. With our angers rising could we ask ourselves whether to be fair, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear armoury to match Israel?

9. We decline to answer, turning our thoughts back years to the India-Pakistan insurrection when India devoloped nuclear armoury to punish Pakistan. Then the UN stood by to let Pakistan develop nuclear capability, no doubt following the old principle of the balance or power.

To be sure, it may have to come to that rather than letting the US attack Iran which would be a far far tougher proposition than attacking Iraq. There is also the possibility that Iran already has live nuclear facilities deep down in old salt-mines, out of the view of American drones. Furthermore, regarding Realpolik-style power-matching, it is interesting that if two potential combatants each are militarily nuclear, there is the colossal danger of either causing a Chernobyl-type reaction in the other, causing radiation over most of the Middle-East.

It is what classy Condy Rice should be aiming at with sensible persuasion rather than her threat to flood the more roguish world with American diplomats. Not that US diplomats would be received well around much of the world these days, especially in South America. Better to stay at home, Condy, and study a bit of real Realpolitik.

Pericles, "even I know that the Japanese government in the first part of the twentieth century was based on the Meiji constitution of 1889, and their parliament was voted for - admittedly only by men over 25 until MacArthur got his hands on it. But democratic, it certainly was."

During the 1920s, Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential.

So the constitution did not provide for full democracy, separation of powers were not in place

After the war, Japan was placed under international control of the Allies through the Supreme Commander, Gen. Douglas MacArthur. U.S. objectives were to ensure that Japan would become a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government supported by the freely expressed will of the people. Political, economic, and social reforms were introduced, such as a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in March 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.

Seems they were forced to accept a democracy, even if it was following some semblance of democracy, it was a forced new form of democracy. As was Germany, which was forced to accept stringent requirements on its election law to prevent instability which had contributed to Hitler's rise.

scammed this info from: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm#history

Pericles,
Appreciate your historical outline of the aftermath and outcome of the German and Japamese surrenders and the ensuing allied occupations which so thankfully led on to the democratisation of the two countries.

Talking as one going on 85, how pleased we are that our two former enemies have turned out the way they have. Even so, political philosophers do say that that the anti-Western nightmarish situation we are facing at present, is far more fannatically religous than WW2 or WW1, the latter in particular, proving the Germans under the Kaiser, unlike the Nazis in WW2, praised God and country throughout the conflict.

Though Hitler is said to have been a declared aethiest, he still had great support from many Lutheran Bishops, some of them in fact, not over-protesting about the German high command's agreement for the total elimination of German Jewry.

Regarding the Japanese, it is interesting that like the Chinese though they have followed Buddhism, they have never really had a state religion, any mysticism being more related to love of nation. It is interesting also that Zen Buddhism, which for a long time has had certain Christian spiritual connections has helped to soften the animosity built up between Westerners and Japs owing to the war.

Although the above appears rather long-winded, it is an endeavour to explain how the war we are experiencing now between Islam and the West, especially in the Middle East, though much less technologically volatile, is far more deadly.

Islamics believe they are so right, we see mothers prepared to offer their sons and daughters as human bombs.

There is so much the need to understand what is really going on about this war, especially in the Middle East, which though we know it is just a horrific replay of British colonialism, or at least with the same Anglipholic perpetrators. Certainly our religous leaders are not doing much about it, and of course, our social scientists who try to give clues, are called bleeding heart lefties by those who call themselves winners, but with nothing yet to show for it