Iraq needed Saddam?

I am with you on this, Archer. I am fundamentally unprepared to accept the rather trite premise that those people - whoever they are - are incapable of governing themselves without the presence of a strongman. I have heard this excuse too many times. I’ve heard it from Russians about Russia, for example. Ever since Ivan the Terrible, Russia has been governed by powerful dictators or dictatorial regimes, so the story goes. Clearly, then, the people are incapable of living their lives peacefully without the presence of a powerful central authority. A nice excuse for a would-be dictator.I would say that all that is required to show the fallacious nature of this premise is to discover whether there are any countries which, having thrown off a tradition of strongman-type central authority have managed, somehow, to “make it” in its absence. In that vein, I’d like to present one example: Ukraine.Ukraine is an interesting case. Since around 988 (Vladimir I, King of Kiev and the Rus), it has been variously under one monarch, dictator, or foreign domination or the other. More recently it was one of the main republics under the Soviet Union. Unlike many other East European countries, it did not have the Soviet system imposed on it. It was, rather, one of the countries that invented it. For the last five hundred years or so, it had no tradition of nationhood as such (parts of modern Ukraine belonged variously to Poland, Russia, Romania, etc). It would seem, under the circumstances, to be an unlikely candidate for democracy. And yet, after a somewhat rocky start, democracy has taken hold there. In spite of serious ethnic/cultural differences (the western half of the country - much of it formerly Polish and speaking Ukrainian - wishes to become westernized, whereas the eastern half of the country - much of it formerly Russian and speaking Russian - wishes to rejoin the Russian Federation). One of the first post-independence presidents, Leonid Kuchma, made the mistake of thinking his countrymen would tolerate a new dictator, and attempted to emulate Vladimir Putin of Russia (or possibly, in his heart of hearts, Alexander Lukashenko, the absolute dictator of Belarus). The people, with absolutely NO tradition of democracy, rose up against him in the Orange Revolution. He and his corrupt cronies were ousted - peacefully, no less - and democracy restored. Whether it will last is another story.Now the obvious counter to this is that the nation had no tradition of violence and thus an analogy to the Middle East is invalid. This is untrue. Ukraine was one of the hearts of the anti-Bolshevik counter revolution (used to be known as White Russia). The Kosacki constantly fought either against or for the central authorities. Stalin, because of widespread anti-Soviet sentiment, conducted a virtual campaign of genocide against ethnic Ukrainians in an effort to retain control. Even today, the amount of distrust and even occasional naked hatred between western Ukrainians and eastern Ukrainians is palpable. And yet . To bring this into line with the OP concerning the need for a dictator in Iraq, I firmly reject that premise. Invading Iraq may be questionable, but not on the grounds that toppling Hussein was in and of itself wrong. I give you as an example the incredible strides made in Iraqi Kurdistan under the umbrella of Allied airpower following the first Gulf War. Although not “democratic” per se, the Kurds were making enormous strides in developing a viable, relatively egalitarian and moreover peaceful society. Given another decade, a more-or-less democratic, stable nation could have emerged in northern Iraq. The moral failure of the invasion was not the invasion itself, but rather the absolute failure to recognize the volatile situation on the ground - as nator said, the descent into chaos and civil war was predictable - and plan for post-invasion. I hold the Bush administration morally, ethically, and pragmatically culpable for that. Omni put it right: the only chance for stability post-Saddam was to recognize the de-facto partition of Iraq: a Kurdistan (which Turkey was prepared to go to war to prevent), a Sunni more-or-less secular nation, and a Shia theocracy. All of which would have been better than the current situation.

On the contrary, I would suggest that "those people" were fully capable of governing themselves quite effectively. However, not as a unified polity. If the goal is a "united Iraq", which is a bit bizarre since the nation of "Iraq" writ large is a colonial invention, then I would say there's probably no way it can occur - at least from without. And I highly doubt the various factions/groups currently engaged in a bloody civil war are going to do it on their own hook. On the other hand, if the goal is regional stability (relatively speaking), then partition appears the only pragmatic answer. Actually, I watch Turkey with trepidation. That was no joke about them going to war to prevent the creation of a Kurdish nation.

No, I understand that partition is not "always a good idea", as your examples amply demonstrate. However, the one attempt at creating a post-colonial, multi-ethnic/multi-religious state that we have is Lebanon, which has been a basket case since the '70's. It's entirely possible that Iraq's only real chance is partition. It still may not work, but the alternatives (continuous factional fighting, civil war, and/or quasi-permanent foreign occupation) appear much worse. Do you have another idea? If so, I'd like to hear it. Indeed. On the other hand, I don't see many alternatives. Certainly the idea of imposing "democracy" from without doesn't appear to be working. As a political cartoon from 1983 during the US "peacekeeping" mission in Lebanon has it: "At least we're keeping them from shooting at each other." I would argue (but probably off-topic for this thread), that the situations are not remotely analogous outside the bare fact of a civil war.

And I completely agree. As those of us here on EvC are not in a policy-making position anyway, I would say that we are certainly free to speculate. Which is all we've been doing. Iraq MUST solve its own problems. We're merely mind-gaming what that solution might be. Last I heard, that was the case. Nobody likes the idea of a federation - which under other circumstances wouldn't be a half-bad idea. That or a commonwealth kind of thing. From the rhetoric of all sides, it sounds like the one thing they all agree on is that they don't want to be under one roof. And if you'll go back to my previous posts, you'll note that I stated that imposition of a solution from outside was a sure-fire way of guaranteeing failure.