The Duplicitous Occupation

The Carpertbagger Report has a great discussion about issues relating to the separation of church and state as they relate to both the occupation of Iraq and contemporary American politics.

Broader questions should be asked. The American victory has been touted as proof of the benefits of the American political system--its democracy, eg, as opposed to that of other nations. However, as plans for the new Iraq are being released, it is becoming more clear that Iraqi democracy (or the government that will be given to them by octroi) does not resemble American democracy.

Religion is one issue. Another is minority treatment. The federation that the Bush administration imagines provides broad minority rights to Kurds that conservatives would never allow in the US. Give whole states over to whole ethnic groups? That must be more problematic than giving them "unequal access to the University of Michigan school of law." If Bush gives everything to the Kurds that they want, they would be nearly independent from Baghdad (they want to be autonomous to the point where they only share common defense policy--they would not even include foreign policy.) (Carnegie on Iraq) It is unclear how this type of loose confederation (which is what it will become) will operate when it is pressed by the US to achieve specific security objectives. Will other minorities have similar rights in their part of Iraq as in "Trans-Kurdistan"? Will they be able to shape the governments in their own provinces, if not in their own nation? Could their be an "Islamic republic" in the cadre of a democratic Iraq? Does this not also contradict the majoritarian democracy that conservatives generally desires?

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on US Success on Exporting Democracy