I may not know a lot about foreign policy, but I do know one thing. I DO NOT want my country taking over another even for these supposed "good for the rest of the world" aims... We have made more than enough mistakes in our past in dabbling in other countries. Why make another one now? Why can't we just do as our allies do, and try to use diplomatic persuasion to achieve our "humanitarian" goals? Flame-r****dant suit on.
Treeman, I see the logic of your thinking, but there are some problems that I see in this plan. First, why must Iraq be the country for the U.S. to begin its "democratization" of the Middle East/Arab world? Granted, Iraq may be one of the most secular of Arabic countries, but there's no guarantee it will stay that way (if anything, the removal of a dictator might lead to greater fundamentalism). Furthermore, didn't we just overthrow a Middle Eastern (although not Arabic) government in Afghanistan. Why can't (and why isn't) our democratic experiment taking place there? Second, you assume that there will be a fully democratic government that will automatically be friendly to the U.S. Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. If history remains constant, the U.S. will probably put in a pro-U.S. autocrat who will distribute the majority of the country's wealth to U.S. oil companies (and based on Bush's loyalties, this is more likely than with another president). Meanwhile, the majority of the Iraqi population will remain impovershed and uneducated. Add to that the American military presence (never popular in the Middle East - see Saudi Arabia) and you will see every Arab dictator pointing to Iraq and proclaiming (not necessarily without justification) it another example of U.S. imperialism. This will just increase Middle Eastern hostility for the United States, not decrease it and we'll have another generation of Bin Ladens To put in a legitimate democracy would require something akin to the Marshall Plan of post WWII. Unfortunately, I do not think either the politicians or the U.S. population is willing to fund such a massive undertaking. We are not experiencing anything even close to the post-war economic boom of the late 40s, 50s and 60s, and if you think anyone is going to give up the tax cuts that Bush is currently pushing for in order to rebuild a once-hostile country half a world away, you're a bigger optimist than me. Most people will just say "We just paid for a war - why do we have to pay to rebuild the enemy?" Granted, most people see Saddaam as the enemy and not the Iraqi people, but that will change when somebody's kids die while fighting the Iraqi army. Even if I'm wrong and the U.S. sets up a real democracy, the likelihood is that both Iraqis and Americans will want the U.S. military out of there as soon as possible. Why? First, the new Iraq democracy will not be seen as legitimate until it is self-sufficient and an American military presence will only hinder the Iraqi government's ability to run the country. Second, we've all seen that the presence of a U.S. military force (even when we've been invited by the government) stirs up anti-American feelings among the fundamentalists. If anything, we'll see an increase in terrorism, not decrease. Americans will not tolerate keeping a military force in a place constantly under siege by terrorists. And unless we're willing to invade every Middle Eastern country, there won't be much that the U.S. can do to stop this. As much as I hate to say this, I believe a democracy can occur only when the people of a country make it happen. Because of Saddam and the sanctions resulting from his actions, I don't think Iraq has the necessary middle class (i.e. people who want to control the wealth they own) necessary to make a democracy happen. I'm not opposed to getting Saddaam out of there, but I do not think your (treeman's) predictions will come true.
If what Treeman says is true then Israel can finally relax because the US will make itself Arab/Muslim enemy number one. Such a scenario would never play out in our favor unless of course nukes are a part of the equation. Even then I wouldn't be so sure that we could keep a puppet government in place anywhere in the Middle East not to mention kicking off major war with radical consequences around the world. And I just don't buy the part about Iraq being a threat to us or even their own neighbors (excluding Kuwait maybe Saudi Arabia), because each (Turkey, Israel, Iran) are completely capable of defending themselves. Hell, Turkey and Israel have nukes.
The likelyhood of a "true democracy" in Iraq is slim to none. There's the ethnic Kurds in the North who want their own homeland and want no part of Syria, Iraq, or Turkey. The Kurds are the ethnicity with no land, and the other countries want it to stay that way. The grief of the Kurds is promoted by the very countries who "sympathize" with the Palestinians. There would be no plans of seccession (it would anger our allies), so the tensions there will stay there until some bloody civil war comes years after the American troops leave. So okay, now we want a "true democracy". Well, would you want to work with the same people who for several years gased and ritually stomped you out? It doesn't matter. The American public won't know about it anyways. P.S. I didn't know Turkey had nukes. I remember about the Cuban missle crisis, but they let down only because the US agreed not to arm Turkey.
Invis - I'll respectfully withdraw the Turkey possessing nukes claim. The only nukes that they have are US-owned and I'll assume that we have exclusive control over them. According to this Canadian web site, there have been rumors of Pakistani/Turkish cooperation of building a nuclear facility off and on since 1981. Based on that web site, the US doesn't care much whether or not Turkey acquires a nuclear facility.
