Iraqi SA = Secruity Agreement.... or Separation Agreement

[Courtney Massengale]

No, my comment was not intended for any particular politician.

To me it is more of a question of overall culture rather than particular personality.

The GoI as a structure and framework is going to be enduring. The Iraqi people LIKE the GoI - they're showing up to the polls at rates in the high 80% rate. Some areas in the latest Kurd elections broke into the mid-90%s. "The Culture" has embraced the framework we laid out for them and I highly doubt that after we leave they're going to make any drastic changes.

They're going to swap out politicians before they decide to get rid of this whole representative democracy thing. Its not the government that is in danger of going away; its the individual politicians who are in the government.

What I see is a Government and an Army made up of a very proud and headstrong people who no longer want our help.

Just to make an analogy, this is like saying that because America invaded Iraq everyone in the American government and military were in favor of invading Iraq. Which, of course, we know isn't the case.

The orders getting sent out of the Prime Minister's office don't reflect the wishes of the entire GoI or the Army. Let alone the people on the street.

If the people don't like the consequences of these actions, then come January, we might find ourselves with a new Prime Minister who is more than willing to talk business.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The GoI as a structure and framework is going to be enduring. The Iraqi people LIKE the GoI - they're showing up to the polls at rates in the high 80% rate. Some areas in the latest Kurd elections broke into the mid-90%s. "The Culture" has embraced the framework we laid out for them and I highly doubt that after we leave they're going to make any drastic changes.

They're going to swap out politicians before they decide to get rid of this whole representative democracy thing. Its not the government that is in danger of going away; its the individual politicians who are in the government.

One question, one point:

Are you assuming that the people of Iraq are a homogenous body of likeminded people who all agree that a secular democracy is the way to go? I would beg to differ on that point. Any large group is made up smaller groups with disparate interests. You can't say the government is one block with a particular view and the people are a completely separate block with a different view. If anything, the politicians are going to mimic what the majority of the people want or expect from their leaders (at least if they want to stay in office).

Second, just because Iraq will have a democratically elected government in January 2010 does not mean it will still be democratic in January of 2011. History is replete with examples of dictators who came to power initially via democratic election. People are often willing to trade liberty for security.

[Courtney Massengale]

One question, one point:

Are you assuming that the people of Iraq are a homogenous body of likeminded people who all agree that a secular democracy is the way to go?

I'm not arguing that they're for SECULAR democracy; but they are for democracy. You can't argue with over 80% participation at the polls. Their motivation for voting may be religiously based and they are obviously going to pick leaders who represent their interests. Even if Iraq turns into a de facto Shiite leaning state, there will still be a significant opposition block that is placed there by the people who want their voice heard in the GoI. That's the part that isn't going to go away.

You can't say the government is one block with a particular view and the people are a completely separate block with a different view. If anything, the politicians are going to mimic what the majority of the people want or expect from their leaders (at least if they want to stay in office).

Having lived in a democracy my whole life, I can assure you that is not reality in any democracy.

The people in control government have one particular view: to stay in control of the government by any means necessary. When that is at odds with a majority of people who no longer want them in control of the government, they fail to get re-elected. If those in control of the government were always reflective of the people need and expect, we wouldn't need elections or oppostion parties.

Second, just because Iraq will have a democratically elected government in January 2010 does not mean it will still be democratic in January of 2011. History is replete with examples of dictators who came to power initially via democratic election. People are often willing to trade liberty for security.

One of the big stories that will play out in January is the difference between Iraq's election and Iran's election.

If the election is peaceful and valid (as the last two have been), I highly doubt that they will be willing to trade their liberty for the demonstrated "security" of some of their neighbors.