Iraq: Moving forward after the 'Three Week's War'.

A collection of recent links and stories...

All Along, Most Iraqi Relics Were 'Safe and Sound'

Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth

A Small Correction Is In Order

The world was appalled. One archaeologist described the looting of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities as 'a rape of civilization.' Iraqi scholars standing in the sacked galleries of the exhibit halls in April wept on camera as they stood on shards of cuneiform tablets dating back thousands of years.

"In the first days after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, condemnation rained down on U.S. military commanders and officials in Washington for failing to stop the pillage of priceless art, while tanks stood guard at the Ministry of Oil. It was as if the coalition forces had won the war, but lost an important part of the peace and history.

"Apparently, it was not that bad."

Apparently.

But what about everyone else? We're sure various news outlets have mentioned it, but certainly not with enough frequency to correct the impression left by the earlier hyped reports. This hasn't exactly been a staple of cable TV. The news business has just sort of moved on without even murmuring an apology.

And, it seems that there is far too little news about this. The media waxed on about this, for quite some time, and the 'looting' story is sure to be pointed to a 'common knowledge' for a decade, but the central fact is that it wasn't true. And the media aren't going to trumpet that they were duped.

All in all, though, good news for the world.



Here are a few views from the scene in question, instead of analysis from afar:

On the ground in Baghdad

Electricity is almost as normal as in the days of Saddam, the markets are just beautiful, people are going out shopping for clothes, satellite dishes, or just buying cokes, you have families in the streets, Americans in humviees surrounded by kids, security is much better and people are still selling beer on the side walks in some districts of Baghdad in spite of all the fiery sermons by Shi?a / Sunni clerics calling for a virtuous ? read alcohol free - society).
I don?t want to give the impression here that every thing is all right and there is no crisis in Iraq, I just want to say that the Americans had - and still have - a perfect opportunity in Iraq, an opportunity they won?t have anywhere else, they could have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqis from the first week after the toppling of the regime, but instead they just provided the extremists with all the pretexts they need - as if they needed any- to attack the Americans they have wasted a good deal of good intensions and hope.

Email from Baghdad




Here are some stories, talking about some of the big-picture issues involved with Postwar reconstruction (which, by now, should be clear that it is in reference to the edifices of state, not merely infastructure).

The devil's excrement - Oil Development

Tricky as this problem is, oil economies such as Norway and Alaska have come up with a clever (though still imperfect) solution: they hive off much of the oil income into ?stabilisation? funds, disbursing ?dividends? to citizens slowly ? directly in Alaska, via social spending in Norway ? so that the economy does not overheat. Chile, one of the world's more successful developing countries, has a similar fund for its copper revenues.

Contrast this cautious approach with the recklessness of the OPEC countries of the Middle East, which expanded domestic spending b

 

great links and articles, Red Seven . thanks! lots of relevant info.

what policy do people think would be best with regard to the iraq debt issue?

 

up for Gonk.

Gonk what is your point about the troops confiscating weapons that are dangerous to the coalition forces?

First of all, before making blanket statements, at least look at the policy.

The coalition forces only destroy weapons larger than assault rifles. THAT'S RIGHT, THE US IS ALLOWING IRAQI'S TO KEEP AK47's,SKS's, and other rifles and pistols, in their home or business.

The US reconizes the need for the ordinary citizen to protect himself, and is enforcing a rule that is similar to the 2nd Admendment .

The coalition only started going door to door after the two week amnesty program ended. Now, only weapons on a list, including rockets, RPG'S, grenades, and mortars will be taken and destroyed, for the safety and stability of the troops and the Iraqi people.

If you can give justification for why any person needs a rocket launcher for protection, I would like to hear it.

Secondly, regarding Washington DC's policy. Only handguns are affected within the city limits. Chicago has a similar policy. Those people in the city can still own rifles and shotguns for sport or for protection. It isn't a universal law that prohibits gun ownership.

I believe instances like this is the root of the misinformation problem. Without finding out the truth, a person makes a claim like "the US is confiscating guns from innocent Iraqis." Then all sorts of people form conspiracy theories.

The truth is that this policy in Iraq is legally documented in the laws of ground warfare and is similar to the policy put into force in post war Germany and Japan. It is being currently administered by NATO in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Kosovo. What exactly are the concerns?

 

"The US reconizes the need for the ordinary citizen to protect himself, and is enforcing a rule that is similar to the 2nd Admendment ."

I was under the impression the US forces wanted to take as many of the AKs off the street, but only removed that from the list of weapons to confiscate when they realised that just about everyone has'em.

 

The article I am reading in today's Chicago Tribune outlines the program.

The coalition would accept any weapon turned into them, but the two week amnesty program required that any weapon determined to be more lethal than an assault rifle be turned over or the weapon would confiscated.

"Due to attacks on coalition forces involving RPG's, grenades and machine guns, operations designed to destroy listed weapons increased Saturday."

"The coalition policy allows Iraqis to keep assault rifles in their businesses or homes for protection."

 

If the US is not taking away AK-47s, then I will concede the point.

Of course, my point in the end was that, in the interest of general safety, that they probably should. But if they're holding the Iraqi way of life up to the same standard as thier own, I will make no qualms over it.

 

Actually, I'd probably say that the US forces should not be trying to take all of the small-arms off of the street. In the fall of an autocratic fascist regime, in a country with a lot of ethnic, religious and societal tension, it is amazing that we haven't seen a massive number of revenge killings and open violence. The US forces cannot protect everyone, and probably won't be able to do as just a job as an eventual Iraqi police force. For the time being, it is better to have individuals, businesses and villages able to put up some resistence, if needed...that uncertainty alone will probably save a thousand lives from massacre in the next few months.

As to the pooh-poohing of the US's (admitted) inability to keep law and order to the same standard as pre-war Iraq...well, this was one of the most brutal police states in the world! Certainly, given the choice between the arbitrary torture and mass murder of the 'efficient' police state and the relative lawlessness and instability in US-occupied Iraq, there isn't an 'ideal' choice, but I have a feeling I know what most people would choose...

 

from the Retrospection Iraq thread...

Gonk said:

If you're looking to maintain both sides of a possible debate, shizzle, you're attacking from the wrong end.

i didn't wish to seem like i was attacking any point. just pointing out inconsistancies really. not with anything you've said, but with certain policies. i know the point of this thread isn't about gun control, but just so you see where i'm coming from on this issue......i'm not a huge gun lover by any means. i don't want to see people with automatic weapons, hand grenades and bazookas who feel it's their constitutional right to bear those arms. by the same token, i don't wish to take guns away from from those who want to own them. i don't have any guns. but i know people who do (and use them to hunt or feel safer) and i suppose they have the right to possess them so long as they are registered and they know how to use them and they don't let their kids play with 'em. i've never known of an instance where a crime was actually prevented because someone had a handgun. i think guns don't really solve anything and provide an opportunity for people to either accidentally or deliberately hurt themselves or others. but it's not my job to convince every gun owner in this country why i think guns are generally a bad thing. aside from being futile, i think people are going to have them because Americans want them. Americans think guns are an extension of their friggin' hands. our culture celebrates guns. and no amount of talking is going to result in convincing those who own guns to give them up. so they can have them, i guess.

but my point about D.C. handgun prohibition and the situation in Iraq was really about how measures are taken that curtail the possibility of incidents with guns taking place by making it forbidden to have them. and i certainly see the point of those policies. we're probably in roughly the same place on this issue, so i don't want to seem like i was attacking your point. and i see an issue with regard to specific weapons being prohibited that also parallels the two issues. which i failed to mention earlier and leads to.....

Mr44:

thanks for the info about the full D.C. gun policies. i should have been clearer about that. also, i had no idea about Chicago. very interesting.

i also see how Red Seven's point about the need for some Iraqis to possess guns might be neccesary for the reasons he explained. very valid points. makes some of the second amendment issues (that Americans are always quick to point out about their country) regarding civilians bearing arms to prevent the population from being totally defensless seem particularly poignant.

 

The war?s not over, boys

AFTER the success of the American-led invasion of Iraq, perhaps it was inevitable that the day-to-day job of maintaining security should seem frustratingly difficult for coalition troops. In particular, American soldiers, who make up the bulk of the allied forces in Iraq and who are policing the Sunni-Muslim areas of central Iraq that were traditionally loyal to Saddam Hussein, have been coming under attack more and more frequently since the war ended last month. By last week, soldiers were being killed every other day, with injuries running high too. So American commanders have hit back. Last week, they undertook two different types of raid: one, ?Operation Peninsula Strike?, involved an attack on the fertile plains around Balad, near the Tigris river, and the rounding-up of around 400 locals; the second, ?Operation Desert Scorpion?, seems to be an ongoing attempt to round up Saddam loyalists and to prevent further ambushes on American troops. Among the raids was an attack on an alleged terrorist training camp 90 miles (145km) north-west of Baghdad, where more than 70 Iraqis were killed in the fighting. In a separate incident, American officials said their forces killed 27 Iraqi fighters who had attacked an American tank patrol north of Baghdad, though the officials refused to confirm this number later. American commanders insist that these robust tactics are necessary if order is to be restored. However, Iraqis have complained of brutal and unjust treatment by the occupying forces. If they are not careful, the Americans could provoke the sort of resistance that they are trying to quash.

...With its 140,000-odd troops on the ground in Iraq, America is particularly vulnerable to what Pentagon strategists describe as ?asymmetric warfare??typically terrorist attacks that do not rely on technology to find their target. Iraq is now a country awash with arms, from pistols to rocket-launchers. The Americans, used to their constitutional right to bear arms, have allowed citizens to retain guns as powerful as Kalasnikovs as long as they are kept at home. An amnesty for surplus weapons has so far yielded little. With so many arms remaining at large, it is hardly surprising that American soldiers do not feel at ease policing Iraq.

As to the debt question, I think that at the very least, the reparations to Kuwait need to be dramatically scaled back, once the new government gets on its feet and proves sustainable. Bilateral debt to Russia and France is a trickier issue, and I do not think the US (or myself) will be able to judge that situation.


In light of some of jabba's comments about the Oil Market and OPEC...

...Those fearful of American and British attempts to retain control over the country?s oil supplies were pleasantly surprised by the spread of companies offered contracts. A large American company, ChevronTexaco, will get 4m barrels and companies from five European countries will get 5.5m barrels between them.

For now, oil from Iraq is unlikely to have a big impact on the global balance between supply and demand. It is not clear, for example, how much oil will be available in the short term. More than a decade of neglect has left Iraq?s oil infrastructure desperately in need of fresh investment. It could be years before the country?s full potential for oil production?it has the world?s second-largest proven reserves, after Saudi Arabia?is realised.

What matters now, though, is the impact of the latest developments on price expectations. These are being felt already. In the run-up to the war, the oil price rose sharply amid fears of serious interruptions to supply across the Middle East. Using production quotas, OPEC worked hard to try to curb the rise and move the price back towards its target range of around $25 a barrel. The cartel?s members have learnt enoug

 

In a separate incident, American officials said their forces killed 27 Iraqi fighters who had attacked an American tank patrol north of Baghdad, though the officials refused to confirm this number later.

i heard the number was reduced to 7, but that there were supposedly dozens of prisoners.

The Americans, used to their constitutional right to bear arms, have allowed citizens to retain guns as powerful as Kalasnikovs as long as they are kept at home.

will this provision of allowing AK-47's at home prove successful as a means of establishing some additional trust between the iraq people and those military peacekeepers who remain? or will it provide more opportunity for violence and terroristic strikes from Baath party/Saddam loyalists and other foreign fighters?

as far as debt goes, i think some of the same principles that apply on an individual level need to apply in the macro-economic sense as well. the debt cannot be dropped altogether, but some kind of reasonable payment schedule needs to be created that doesn't render the country and it's people devoid of hope. who should determine the terms for these things?

 

So what's going on with the oil fields of Iraq? Are they under the control of the U.S. coalition?

 

The major oil fields are under coalition control.

British troops control the Northern Rumaila oilfields

US troops control the southern oilfields and the distribution port.

I haven't heard about the status of any burning wells lately.

 

Control denotes 'protection from sabotage, and security to continue operation', not some sort of hoarding of economic wealth. Just want to make that clear.

The Iraqi oil went up on the market for bidding...who accepted the bids? An Iraqi authority? UN body? Collection of US/UK officials? A mixture?

 

yes, sorry..

basically, the coaliton forces in the areas I mentioned are "security guards", like what R7 indicated.

Did the UN modify its stance on Iraqi oil? Last I heard, was that the UN had to reconize the new government before it could modify the sales restrictions.

Did the bidding finally go through?

 

See the above article I posted...it certainly seems to suggest bidding went through.




US has handled many of the humanitarian issues well, desptite criticism


Building an Iraqi Army that can 'kick ass'

...Which brings us to some serious cultural differences. Arab armies rarely get the kind of constructive competition you see in Western armies. That is because, for Arab soldiers, it is seen as safer to not compete, so no one is "disgraced" by losing, than it is to compete and improve everyone's skills. Of course there is competition in Arab society, in business as well as sports. But the concept of "losing gracefully" is not as readily accepted as it is in the West. This can be overcome. Arab officers attending American military schools over the last half century learned to live with the competition, even if it is a bit of a shock at first.

...The competition means officers, NCOs and troops will be expected to take the initiative. This has traditionally been discouraged. Initiative can lead to failure, or unexpected situations. Arabs prefer to avoid both. The new Iraqi army will have to learn to live with it.

In addition to general Abizaids speeches, the Iraqis will also be inspired by two (1991 and 2003) humiliating defeats at the hands of the Americans. Older Iraqis remember the equally swift defeat by the British in 1941, and all Iraqis wince at the memory of being subjugated for centuries by a handful of Turkish soldiers. If change is truly in the air in Iraq, it could result in the first world class Arab army. This development would, if nothing else, give American and the West another reason to pay close attention to Iraq on a regular basis.

 

on cue:

New Iraqi army plans unveiled

The CPA said recruiting for the new Iraqi Army would begin next week but senior officers who were closely allied to the former Baath regime would be barred from applying.

The new recruits' training will be supervised by a US general.

Within three years, it is hoped that 40,000 soldiers will have been trained and be ready to take up duties. The force will be a tenth of the size of its predecessor.

Walter Slocombe, a senior security and defence adviser to the CPA, said Iraq had been "grotesquely over militarised".

He told a news conference: "It is the fact that most people who were in the old army will not be able to continue military careers.

"The old military needed to be formally disbanded so that it could be replaced by a new military organisation and forces suited to a democratic nation.

"This will be a military force, not a police force, not a security guard force.

"They will carry out regular military duties. We expect they will be protecting and defending borders of the country, providing military defence for key installations and protecting key facilities."

The importance of the Iraqi reconstruction to American Foreign Policy

...It would be a comfort to believe that Islamic terrorism rises and falls with each twist and turn of American foreign policy. If so, America would need only to adjust its policy for the terrorism to stop. But its causes are more complicated than that. Here and there (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya) it stems from a Muslim struggle against non-Muslim rule. Often (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria) it arises from the desire of Muslims to throw off their own governments because they are seen as corrupt, repressive or insufficiently pious. And sometimes (al-Qaeda) this local struggle mingles with the idea that Islam is locked in perennial jihad against the unbelievers. Muslims who think this way, says Bernard Lewis, one of Islam's foremost interpreters in the West, will see any American president as the successor of a long line of rulers, from the Byzantine and Holy Roman emperors to Queen Victoria, who have obstructed the divinely ordained spread of the true faith.

...Violent hearts captured by this sort of worldview will not be dissuaded by this or that adjustment in foreign policy. Mr bin Laden's 1998 declaration of war against ?Crusaders and Jews? came at a time of relative optimism in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. This week's bombs came less than a month after America said it would remove most of its forces from Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda will continue its attacks even if America pushes hard for peace in Palestine (see article), and it would not have stopped its attacks even if America had decided against invading Iraq. As for Afghanistan, there is every indication that the loss of its safe haven has indeed disrupted al-Qaeda's ability to operate. Many of its top men have been killed or captured.

...The Saudi bombs do not show that America is losing the peace in the Middle East. But, of course, it may lose the peace. Whatever the reasons for its war, victory in Iraq has given America an opportunity to build an exemplary democracy and to stabilise the wider region. Neither of these jobs was ever going to be easy. The implosion of a three-decades-old dictatorship could not fail to leave a mess. The ruling party has been abolished at the stroke of a pen, leaving chaos behind it. Contrary to the forebodings of those who say that Arabs cannot be democrats, the appetite for democracy looks strong. Many Shia clerics, including those returning from Iran, endorse the idea of elections, albeit with an Islamic flavour. But democracy of any sort requires order, and the occupying powers have so far been slow to provide either order or the necessities of civilised life, such as electricity and clean water.

...It is impossible to overstate th

 

Up we go.

 

While the three weeks war itself is tangential to the issue, I would like to know what the rest of you think we should do now. How long should we be staying in Iraq? What indicators should be met before we can declare complete victory?

With almost as many U.S. soldiers dying after the war as during the war, people are getting upset. Here is Pat Buchannen, noted right-winger and religous enthusiast, and his take:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we still here?


Posted: June 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


"What are we getting into here?" asked the sergeant from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, stationed north of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

The questions that sergeant put to a Washington Post reporter are ones our commander in chief had better begin to address.

For less than three months after the fall of Baghdad, we have lost almost as many men in Iraq as we did in three weeks of war. One U.S. soldier is now dying there every day.

"Mission Accomplished," read the banner behind President Bush as he spoke from the carrier deck of the Lincoln. But if the original mission ? to oust Saddam and end the mortal threat of his weapons of mass destruction ? is "accomplished," why are we still there?

What is our new mission? What are the standards by which we may measure success? What will be the cost in blood and treasure? When can we expect to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis? Or is ours to be a permanent presence, as in postwar Germany and Japan?

If that sergeant does not know what he is doing there, it is because his commander in chief has left him, and us, in the dark. And if the president does not begin soon to lay out the case for why we must keep 150,000 men in Iraq, the American people will begin to demand they be brought home. Already, one poll shows that 44 percent of the nation finds the present level of U.S. casualties "unacceptable."

This is not 1963. Americans no longer have the same patience or trust in government we had when JFK took us into Vietnam. We are no longer willing to have Americans die in open-ended wars for unexplained ends. Dean Rusk's familiar mantra, "We are there, and we are committed," is no longer enough.

When the United States lost 241 U.S. Marines in the bombing of the Beirut barracks 20 years ago, and 18 Army Rangers in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, Americans demanded we get out. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton hastily did.

As has been written here many times, Americans are lousy imperialists. We are uninterested in ruling and reforming other peoples if they appear to want us out of their lives. Nor are we willing to shed American blood for visions of empire dancing in the heads of Potomac pundits.

This week, six British soldiers were killed ? three executed ? after surrendering to Iraqi civilians enraged over intrusive house searches that they believe dishonored them and their women. This was in the Shia region of southern Iraq, which had been thought to be pacified.

One is reminded of Yitzhak Rabin's remark after the invasion of southern Lebanon had ignited the peaceful population there: "We have let the Shia genie out of the bottle."

On their visit to Baghdad, Sens. Lugar and Biden warned the U.S. Army might have to remain in Iraq five years. But Americans are not going to tolerate five years, or even two years, of guerrilla war without a better explanation as to exactly what vital interest of ours requires us to stay in Iraq and fight this war.

Moreover, there is every indication the security situation is getting worse. The incident in the south is but one example. The heavy-handed but natural reaction of U.S. soldiers to being ambushed and sniped at and killed every day is another. Invading homes searching for weapons, rousting out and roug

 

Pat is a clueless paleoconservative. He's a different animal to all of the neocons you've been agitating with for months! I think you'd find most neocons would find his isolationist streak (as well as the isolationist streak latent in the GOP) to be contrary to their worldview.

 

i agree with Red. Buchanan is an idiot. his primary concern in life seems to be making sure Americans aren't denied those high paying jobs as lettuce pickers. apparantly, illegal immigrants are stealing all the good jobs from college grads who want to go into the migrant worker industry. i see a need for some work with border issues, but Buchanan is hands down one of the worst political commentators out there.

 

I attended a lecture he gave at Northwestern, and he seems to be just old-school conservative. At least he tries to stay true to his ideology rather than shift around (bloat the deficit, increase federal bearuocracy, practice nation building) ideas that conservatives claim they abhor but then rename and champion.

Red, what's a paleo-conservative?

 

possible definitions:

1. a dinosaur.

2. a conservative who is fish-belly white.

3. an idiot.

 

PaleoConservative are what you were calling 'old school'. They are anti-immigration, isolationist, etc. I find it hard to comment on them, since I don't agree with much of anythign they say.

Google:
these definitions are close enough

 

From the London Times

American troops plead for reinforcements

AMERICAN troops who narrowly escaped a rocket attack yesterday joined the growing number in the military who say that reinforcements are needed or they risk being overrun by the Iraqi resistance.

While President Bush and other political leaders continue to play down concerns that the peacekeeping force is struggling to cope, troops on the ground say that they must have more help.

One survivor from the attacked patrol sat with his head in his hands, saying: ?We are being given the run-around. There just aren?t enough of us.? Three of his men were injured, one seriously, in the attack in Haifa Street in the heart of Baghdad when a rocket-propelled grenade was fired from a pick-up truck.

Senior officers scampered around ordering men not to express publicly such sentiments. Some disobeyed.

Staff Sergeant Bryan Harrington, 37, an explosives expert from Texas, picked through the smouldering wreckage in his sixth investigation of the morning. It was shortly after 10.30am.

He said: ?We don?t have enough people to get after all the bad men we need to deal with. Armed gangs are now picking us off at will. We haven?t the manpower to search for weapons, do patrols, keep the peace and root out Saddam?s henchmen who are still around.?

The ambush of the threevehicle convoy in Haifa Street joined a catalogue of violence yesterday that showed ten Americans injured, two seriously, a similar number of Iraqis wounded, including a six-year-old boy, and three local men killed in at least eight separate attacks. This was described as ?a pretty normal day? by one senior officer.

American commanders in Baghdad refused to comment on reports that Paul Bremer, the US administrator running Iraq, has asked Washington for more troops to bolster the 158,000-strong force.

Yesterday?s violence began with shots fired at a patrol in the Baghdad suburb of Kadamiyah. US troops say that they returned fire, killing the gunman and injuring his six-year-old son who was with him. A few hours later, two men on a motorcycle were seen firing a shoulder-held missile at a convoy in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad, injuring six Americans. US troops trying to disperse demonstrators after an explosion in Baquoba, 35 miles north of Baghdad, came under sniper fire. At least one bystander was killed in the subsequent exchange of fire.

In the Haifa Street attack, four men dressed in white, with their faces covered, launched their missile attack near a school. The gang must have known there was no chance of avoiding civilian casualties. One old man on a bench was killed by shrapnel.

As the soldiers from the convoy scrambled to find cover, witnesses say that some panicked and fired at passing motorists and at balconies of apartments.

The attacks came the day after President Bush appeared to dare Iraqi militants who have been killing American soldiers to launch fresh assaults. Asked about the mounting US casualties, Mr Bush declared ?bring ?em on?, asserting that US forces in Iraq are ?plenty tough? to deal with the threat.

The provocative language provoked indignation from Democrats, who claimed that Mr Bush was endangering the lives of US troops. ?I am shaking my head in disbelief,? , the veteran Democrat senator, said. ?I never heard any military commander invite enemies to attack US troops.?

Dick Gephardt, a presidential candidate, said he had heard ?enough of the phoney, macho rhetoric? from Mr Bush.

 

...As for Mr. Gephardt, one of my Stanford TA's probably has a better grasp of the situation in Iraq than he does. While I certainly support an open dialouge on whether additional resources should, can, or will be committed to Iraq, his points are transparent political grandstanding. I won't do that (until it's time to run for office myself... )


Here is an interesting article, addressing the skepticism that America can foment Democracy in Iraq, and the Middle East. I thought it would be a good piece for discussion.

It didn't take long for skeptics to dismiss George W. Bush's pledge to democratize a postwar Iraq. Antiwar activists saw the pledge as a transparent excuse for warmongering. And democracy advocates harshly, and justifiably--criticized the State Department for scotching plans for a postwar federal government in favor of a centralized regime.

But perhaps the most troubling criticism came from historians and area experts, who trained their sights on the neoconservative argument that Iraq can be the start of a larger wave of democratization across the Middle East...

...Historians and area specialists traffic in the particular rather than the general; they have professional incentives to promote that line of discourse. On top of that, it is intellectually fashionable these days to believe that local conditions always triumph over grand theory. But the local conditions argument overlooks a crucial detail: Over the past century, international factors have been more important than domestic factors in determining the success of democratic transition and consolidation. And the international factors surrounding Iraq are more favorable than one might think.

Current perceptions of how regimes democratize have largely been shaped by what Samuel Huntington has labeled the "third wave" of democratization, during which states--in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim--democratized through the internal overthrow of autocratic regimes.

But these perceptions aren't completely reliable. For one thing, they overlook the fact that external military force contributed to third-wave developments in Haiti, Panama, and the Balkans. More importantly, though, they ignore the main force behind Huntington's "second wave" of democratization (1943-1962): U.S. military occupation. Allied occupation contributed to a successful democratic transition not only in Japan, but in France, Italy, Austria, and West Germany; it pushed Greece, the Philippines, and South Korea toward democratization as well. As Notre Dame political scientist Guillermo O'Donnell, writing with European University Institute scholar Philippe Schmitter, concluded in 1986, "[T]he most frequent context within which a transition from authoritarian rule has begun in recent decades has been military defeat in an international conflict. Moreover, the factor which most probabilistically assured a democratic outcome was occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy."

Skeptics will cite Afghanistan and point out that military occupation alone hardly guarantees a full democratic transition. That analysis may be right as far as it goes, but it fails to address the question of why democratization tends to occur in waves. The answer is that there's another mechanism through which external forces matter: proximity to neighboring market democracies. Political scientists Jeffrey Kopstein and David Reilly, of the University of Toronto and Niagra University, point out in their examination of the economic and political freedoms in the post-communist world that the former communist countries currently enjoying the greatest freedoms were geographically closest to the Soviet Union's noncommunist perimeter. The authors conclude, "This suggests the spatially dependent nature of the diffusion of norms, resources, and institutions that are necessary to the construction of political democracies and market economies in t