What should the US do if a Putin rises in Iraq?

[Perinquus]

The recent Iraqi elections are certainly a cause for cautious optimism. It was heartening to see Iraqis turning out in such numbers, despite the threat of bombing at the polls. It was also heartening to see that where bombing did take place, it was the voters that were killed, rather than the suicide bombers who were buried as martyrs.

Now let's assume for a moment that everything goes extremely well from this point on. The Iraqis, it seems, will have to form a coalition government, as no one party dominated in the elections (this may also be a great thing, as it should help prevent one party dominating utterly, and making these the last free elections, as well as the first). And lets assume that with the machinery of a democratic republic in place, and with elected leaders serving in this government, the Iraqis can construct a stable democracy in the Middle East. This certainly would be beneficial to U.S. interests, and is a stated goal of the Bush administration. So lets say for the sake of argument that this happens just this way, and everything looks very promising indeed.

But let's assume also that a few years down the road, an Iraqi version of Vladimir Putin appears. He starts out as a democratically elected leader, but then goes on to gradually undermine democratic institutions, and assume more and more power himself, until finally, Iraq has an autocrat ruling over it, and things are back to being not so different than they were before (it depresses me when I think how likely this scenario actually is). What action should the U.S. take if it sees this sort of thing happening? One the one hand, we have promised them sovereignty, and if this is the sort of government they end up with, a case can certainly be made that that's an internal Iraqi issue, and we shouldn't interfere. On the other hand, the U.S. has a lot of its prestige and diplomatic credibility tied up in building a democratic Iraq. To see that effort ultimately come to nothing, after so much blood and treasure has been spent is certainly not in U.S. interests. Moreover, the Iraqi people, judging by the voter turnout really do seem to want a democratic government.

Now the best thing the U.S. can probably do is help train Iraqi military and police, and use a Marshall Plan-like aid package to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure and keep its economy growing. The rise of dictators is always made easier when times are hard and they can win people over by promising to fix things. But assuming the dicator rises anyway, and takes power gradually, as Putin is doing in Russia, what action, if any, should the U.S. take to avoid seeing its efforts to build a democratic Iraq undone?

[Zoink]

cautious optimism.

That's the right word. Will the Iranian-backed Mullahs in power still like the U.S. five years after american troops have left??? They went from being labelled the enemy (80s), to victims (90s), to the current Iraqi powerbase. What will their reaction be if the U.S. confronts Iran in the near future?

[Enforcer Talen]

I dont think we'll do anything at all. we often let dictators do their thing if we can keep our bases (phillipines?), and iraq/hussein is more of a bush quirk then an american one.

[Zaia]

N&P

[Lord MJ]

It was also heartening to see that where bombing did take place, it was the voters that were killed, rather than the suicide bombers who were buried as martyrs.

Eh..

[Mayabird]

It was also heartening to see that where bombing did take place, it was the voters that were killed, rather than the suicide bombers who were buried as martyrs.

Eh..

I think he's saying that it's better that the dead voters were buried as martyrs instead of the suicide bombers. That sentence confused me for a moment, too.

[Perinquus]

It was also heartening to see that where bombing did take place, it was the voters that were killed, rather than the suicide bombers who were buried as martyrs.

Eh..

I think he's saying that it's better that the dead voters were buried as martyrs instead of the suicide bombers. That sentence confused me for a moment, too.

Exactly. The people did not revere the suicide bombers as martyrs. It was their victims who were revered.

[Stravo]

I'm actually more concerned about a fundamentalist dominated council in these elections. The last thing we need is to lose a stable secular state in the middle of a sea of fundieism. (One of the many reasons other Arab states hated Iraq so much was their secularism)