Obstacles to Democracy in Iraq

On this site, most of the Iraq related posts have been arguments countering the politically opportune and defeatest memes belying the actual reality. Despite the numerous components to the war that are in our favor, I am seeing that there are several items that could still impede democracy from flourishing in Iraq: general corruption, fundamentalist backed gangs and foreign "influence."

Corruption is one of the most difficult and entrenched aspects of Iraqi life. There is nothing that isn't for sale. For example, Iraqi Security forces will raid a terrorist hideout and make several arrests, and later, the terrorist groups will send someone with cash in hopes of securing the release of the detainees. The detainees, the one who earlier were shooting at their captors, are "freed" to fight again. This reality has driven American commanders crazy, and may be one of the driving forces behind the Defense Department's announcement that there will be a significant reduction in American troop levels by the end of the year. Iraqi security forces are the key component to holding security long-term and they are going to have to learn to stand on the rule of law, or they will be the primary targets of those who continue in their attempts to destabilize the new government.

Next, there are armed gangs, or militias, backed by ruthless fundamentalists that continue to roam the country. Strategypage reports that this just isn't a Sunni driven issue, but a Shiite one:

Not all the terrorists in Iraq are Sunni Arabs belonging to al Qaeda. In southern Iraq, Shia Islamic conservatives use death squads and street gangs to enforce their version of the Islamic life style. This means women dressing very modestly, and staying out of sight, no alcohol, even for non-Moslems, no music and movies, no mixing of men and women outside of family or marriage, and no complaining about all this. The police won't act against the religious gangs, out of fear, or because they are bribed. This allows the gangs to get away with murder. The religious gangs are largely composed of Iraqi religious conservatives who fled to Iran years ago, and returned from exile influenced by the ideas of religious extremists in Iran. No one will admit it, but the religious gangs are believed to be supported (with money and advisors) by Iran (which denies all.)

I've been reading Strategypage regularly for several months, and Jim Dunnigan seems to believe that majority of Iraqis are very fond of democracy and fear Islamic fundamentalism. The problem is that the fundamentalists are well organized and can be extremely ruthless and brutal to those they want to subject. The reports coming out of Basra describing British troops standing around as fundamentalist gangs roam with impunity enforcing sharia is disturbing. Right now, for the Iraqi democrat, fear is a stronger motivator than fondness.

This isn't about Islam as much as it is about Lord Acton's axiom: "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." For centuries now, Arabs have been using Islam as tool to subject and control their people. Its no test of faith of their submission to Allah when they are the ones holding the wip in their hand. Many centuries of this brutal oppression has led to a beaten population which has been manipulated and physically beaten into "submission."

Those who long for a better life see freedom and moderate Islam as a pipe dream since the fundamentalists have all the power and organization. If one walks through a bad neighborhood where the bad guys carry all the guns, it is far easier, and in the best interest of self-preservation, to keep your head down and your mouth shut versus doing something to clean the trash off the street.

This is where, in my opinion, the State Department has failed. All the foreign policy realists at foggy bottom have been far too willing to compromise here. The military has done a good job of going in and hunting down terrorists, while in the meantime training the Iraqi security forces to fight terrorists themselves. They have also initiated and run most of the rebuilding efforts (through contractors). The State Department could have provided a lot of leadership in helping local bodies to organize, while cheerleading democracy throughout the country, but as a whole, they were never committed to the democracy thing.

It is hard for the moderate Iraqis to feel confident in standing up for democracy when you have fundamentalists standing on your head, and the United States, who is supposed to be the embodiment of democracy, is sending mixed messages. We abandoned the Iraqis in 1991, and after Saddam slaughtered them, you can bet they are extremely cautious in believing that we'll follow through on promises again.

The responsibility of this major failure also lies with President Bush. While the State Department is unwilling to fully commit, Bush should be actively countering this message. In general, he has been very poor at communicating directly to the Iraqi people that, as long as he is in charge, he will commit the United States to making sure that we won't abandon them. Secondly, he has poorly communicated his vision to the American people. The American people don't like fighting for something they don't understand, and combined with the leftist onslaughts against the war, have become weary. Again, if you are an average Iraqi getting threatened by the gangs and thugs ruling your neighborhood in the name of "Islam," are you really willing to rely on an uncommunicative and unreliable United States to have your back when you stand up to them?

Lastly, foreign influences are hindering efforts by extending the life of the primarily Baathist insurgnecy. Support is seeping through the borders in the form of men, weapons and money. Syria and Iran are state sponsers of these efforts, while the Saudis, even though an accurate picture is muddy at best, seem have no control over their fanatics.

Many critics of the execution of the war on the right have said that the porous borders are a direct result of not sending enough troops to seal the borders. Now, there are other arguments for the use of more troops other than border patrol (I still don't agree with them), but I have yet to see a military tactic that is capable of "sealing" an ambiguous border into a country. Coalition forces and Iraqi security forces are having a hard enough time sealing much geographically smaller areas like cities.

The way to begin dealing with foreign fighters is to start attacking the hornets in their nest. Syria has become a base for foreign fighters, and the United States should be willing to cross the border to go after them. Syria is reeling diplomatically right now, so the United States may be able to do so without too much griping from the Europeans.

Iran is a different story. The Europeans are still trying to "work" through diplomacy and Iran is entrenching. Iran is internally cracking down on dissident, democratic supporters while al-Qaeda and the mullahs are increasing their cooperation. There are no easy solutions regarding Iran and, at this point, are the biggest conundrum in the region.

Overall, the situation remains extremely fluid, but there are some immediate remedies (discussed above) that United States can pursue to help the process along. The constant in this whole equation has been the stratospheric level at which our military has performed. Without the efforts of these men and women, Iraq wouldn't have a chance.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at August 3, 2005 12:07 PM | TrackBack