• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

On April 9, 2003 the Iraqi people declared their independence from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Media escorts did not report to work, “Comical Ali” did not report to work, and statues of Hussein began to fall all over Iraq.

On April 28, 2003, a meeting was held in Baghdad. At this meeting it was agreed upon by Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, tribal chiefs (as well as prominent exiles) that a national conference should be held within the next four weeks at which an Iraqi transitional government would be selected. The early stages of Iraq’s independence seem quite similar to ours.

In 1776, the United States declared its independence. In 1777-1781 the Articles of Confederation were proposed and ratified (our transitional government). Not until 1788 was the Constitution ratified, creating our less-than-perfect government. It took almost 12 years to form the most perfect union the world has ever seen, and we did not do it alone either.

It does not make sense to abandon Iraq in its time of need. However, it would be naive to believe that Iraq will want the style of democracy we choose. Fortunately, the United States is neither senseless nor naive; the United States is experienced. The rebuilding of Iraq will most likely resemble the rebuilding of Germany after World War II.

This issue has led some people to the question: “Should the United States institute a democracy in Iraq or should the Iraqis be free to create their own government?”

In his column on this issue, James Moon said that the United States is acting unilaterally and that this is “his” (Bush’s) war (“Face off: U.S. will only support democratic government, April 28). He goes on to imply that we are completely self-absorbed and only want to install a pro-U.S. democracy because it “means a safer America.” These are typical center-leftist catch-phrases and arguments.

However, Moons’ cynicisms are not completely wrong. We do not need another Hussein, and there are still reasonable doubts about how far the United States can and will go to ensure security in a new Iraq. Those points aside, his column is merely a back-handed endorsement of an Iraqi democracy.

Rachael Sizgorich’s column is somewhat faulty as well (“Face off: Learn from mistakes of past, let Iraq form own government,” April 28). She states that the Bush administration is backing Ahmad Chalabi. This is simply not true. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said about Chalabi, “He’s not an insignificant figure. But we’re also not trying to anoint him or anyone else as the future leader of Iraq. ... His status as a political leader is going to have to be decided by Iraqis, not by Americans.”

However, Sizgorich does correctly acknowledge that “there is something to be said about allowing a nation to set up its own government.” This seems to be the intent of the Bush administration, based on public statements made by Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, among others.

According to Sizgorich, we can look to the emerging democracy in Iran and see that people in the Middle East hunger for change. While I believe they do hunger for change, there are hardly “small steps toward democracy” being taken. They lack basic freedoms. They do not believe in the freedom of speech, and dissenters often casually disappear. If you are waiting for a democracy in Iran, here is some advice: Don’t hold your breath.

Sizgorich also talks about the failed post-World War I German government. She says, “such is the case in Iraq.” This comparison is wrong, as the U.S. handling of Germany after World War II, not World War I, more closely resembles the handling of Iraq today.

Hitler rose to the helm in a democracy. This was possible because of the lack of help received in rebuilding Germany after World War I. His party was a socialist worker party and though he “won” an election, he really took and held his leadership position by force. Iraq was also a former democratic government (Republic). Hussein, like Hitler, also held control by force. His vehicle was the socialist Baath party.

Like post-World War II Germany, Iraq was filled with mass looting. Post-war Germany was also marked by U.S. occupation. America created a Constabulary Unit that was active from 1946 to 1952. The purpose was not to create a government, but to help stabilize a government. When help was no longer needed, the United States left.

We are not setting out to make a pro-American democracy in Iraq (it is a nice thought though). Rather, we are trying to set up a stable democratic government like we did in Germany – a government that will not cause any more trouble for the United States or the world.

Indeed, we should learn from the past. Tyrants fight tyrants, tyrants fight democracies, and democracies fight tyrants. However, democracies do not typically fight each other. Therefore, it is in our interest and in the world’s interest for a democracy of sorts to emerge in Iraq. But it is the responsibility of the free people to form their own “less-than-perfect” union. This process will begin within the next four weeks, and the United States will be present to help ensure the security of the new state.

Garthoffner is a second-year, computer science student.