Carmon

For many months the Prometheus Institute has been silent as to the most controversial international American conflict since the Vietnam War - the War in Iraq. The war is now so broad in its military, political and social undertaking that it made Bill Clinton's foray into Serbia look like a wine-and-cheese European holiday weekend. We have been silent in this matter because the War in Iraq is so layered and intricate that we simply did not have the historical perspective to accurately assess possible solutions to this, America's latest foreign invasion.

Like most Americans, several extremely difficult questions faced us: Should we continue a war which has no conceivable ending point? Was the wareven justifiable to be begin with? Would it now be wiser to promptly admit defeat and withdraw our troops? Will the legacy of America in Iraq be creating a smoldering land mass and thirty rival factions competing for an unseated throne, or will it be creating ablissful republic with the ability to support its people with the infrastructure it so desperately needs? Most importantly, will the Americanization of Iraq actually result in less terrorist activity, as we are so told?

The Trap

Let's take a brief look back to the start of this tangled mess. We were originally led to believe that the reason for the war was linked to indisputable evidence, confirmed by multiple intelligence agencies, regarding the stockpiling of biological and nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein. The president then corraled Congress to tacitly approve a War in Iraq with no clear timetable or exit strategy and a vaguely outlined mission that centered around capturing presumed "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Three years later, the nonexistent "WMDs" became a buzzword in the English lexicon. They failed to surface in Iraq, and Saddam now admits he never even had them. In order to save face, the strategy of the war took on an entirely new agenda: to dismantle the existing Iraqi dictatorship and replace it with good ol' fashioned American democracy. This new democracy, it was argued, would help to stabilize the Middle East, therefore assisting American security.

Unfortunately, none of the rosy predictions are coming true. Recent government reports have concluded that the war is encouraging new terrorist recruits, among other dangerous developments. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are labelling the entire venture a failure.

US citizens still remain anxious for some sort of victory, despite the shifting rationale, but the problem is getting worse and worse. The outcries at the lack of progress are finding a sympathetic ear in the Democrats, who will trot into the mid-term elections and ease into their victory lab with a Democratic holding the keys to the White House in 2008.

The President's new goal

Meanwhile, neither party seems to have a good answer as to exactly why we are losing this war or what we can do to win it. The President himself admits he has no idea when the war will end. But he does have a (vague) criterion for a withdrawal, specifically an Iraqi nation that can "sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself."

This is an incredibly optimistic goal when we consider the great amount of trouble that our own country has had completing these same tasks for ourselves. We should be mindful that our country has a democratic head-start of well over two centuries over the Iraqis. And unlike the American revolution, the Iraqi democratization was not initiated by the people themselves.

The Bush Administration's goal of spreading democracy is extremely questionable. Democracy recently applied in Palestine, for example, ended up in the sweeping election of Hamas, a terrorist organization.

Democracy, a lot like the free market, works well in rational, peaceful, and wealthy countries, but not so well in poor, backward, and fanatical ones. There is no "transformative" effect of democracy, either. Democracy doesn't make zealots rational - it just makes them able to elect zealots to positions of power.

Now America stands at the proverbial crossroads. The is question is whether we believe in this alleged power of democracy and thus continue the unpopular imposition of the supposedly universally-loved state structure, or admit defeat and fly our boys back home as quick as possible. Or is there still a middle ground?

It is the Institute's opinion that although the war was once justified on the presumed existence of dangerous weapons of mass destruction, these noble goals have been abandoned in an improvident current prosecution of "The War on Terror."

In our opinion, the War on Terrorism should not be about rebuilding countries. The inability of America to offensively colonize other countries has always been painfully clear even since our failed invasion(s) of Canada in the Revolutionary War. The leaders of our country have failed to learn from the lessons of the past. As supported by our roles in the Spanish-American War, World Wars I & II and Desert Storm, our rate of success is far better when we are serving a protective role rather than an aggressive one.

Since we already captured Saddam, murdered his sons, and have no hope to find the WMDs, we have ended any possible national threat and thus have no more legitimate governmental interest in Iraq. We must immediately find the quickest way to leave Iraq without precipitating a civil war - not continue to seek an imposition of democracy that is neither desired, efficient, or beneficial for either country.

What everyone else is too afraid to say

There is a specter over Iraq which almost everyone in the media and this government knows on some level, yet all parties avoid addressing it publicly. It is the cause for the current disharmony and it will surely be the cause for skirmishes in the future. The specter I speak of is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran and the damage it causes in the minds of men.

Most interpretations of the Koran are positive, life giving, peace offering, and humble in scope. However, when the Koran is twisted by power-hungry and often times evil people, it can turn a prosperous and peaceful society into a hate-filled locus of oppression.

It is an exercise in insanity to give political power to passionately religious people who are taught that the Koran militates against precisely the type of political changes and social conventions the US wishes to bring them. To many citizens of Iraq, whether Sunni or Shia or in between, the West is the designated spokesman for the devil. The goal of the war should not be to trust these people with democracy.

Fundamentalist Islam has no capacity to adopt any effective form of democratic government, period, and in no situation should this acidic ideology be encouraged to gain power. Not even the most elementary assumptions of the nature of man nor theories of effective government can reconciled with the new breed of uncompromising Islam.

It is suicide at worst and perilous at best to assume Iraq is capable of adopting a fully functional democratic government without radically endangering the lives of every single citizen in the country, every country in the region, and even the United States. There is much more that can be said to add to this point, but for purposes of brevity I will leave it at that. For more information please see Five Intrinsic Problems Facing Islamic Countries.

The daily slaughter of Iraqis by Iraqis of opposing Islamic sects is all the evidence America should need to be persuaded of the inadvisability of Iraqi democracy. What if the Iraqis have a peaceful plebiscite and they, like Hamas, vote terrorists into office? Or, like Iran, elect an anti-Semitic, anti-Western demagogue bent on nuclear weapons? Each major Iraqi sect seems to have as its primary goal the obliteration of the other Iraqi sects; these sentiments should not be given democratic legitimacy. The Bush Administration's policy, in the end, has the end effect of bringing international political legitimacy to the very same groups we are trying to eradicate.

The solution to the Iraq predicament

The only viable solution in the opinion of this organization is to install in Iraq a moderate Muslim potentate who can effectively limit, with a strong centralized force (and perhaps decentralized provincial decision-making), sectarian conflict and radical fundamentalism. This example is given by the more "moderate" Islamic states, including Turkey, Egypt, and Kuwait, who subdue terrorists while piously imposing sharia-inspired law and order.

America should concede Iraq a theocratic governmental structure that substantially limits democracy. This is the best option to preserve stability and facilitate quick withdrawal. The Iraqi constitution should provide as much provincial/ethnic independence as necessary to avert full-scale civil war, and the military should continue to be trained as much as necessary to keep the government in power. All aid should be given to this fledgling nation contingent upon the continuing prosecution of Islamic extremists.

America should abandon the attempt to impose democracy on Iraq. The Iraqi government should be relatively responsive to public sentiment and concerns but it should retain the absolute strength and authority to quash terrorists and other dangerous sectarian killers. The Iraqis already resent the American-led governmental creation, and so it is foolish to allow them to elect their resentment into power. If the Iraqis' own government is a permanently installed reminder of US dominance, future revolution (and a worse political mess for which the US would be liable) is guaranteed.

It is an uncomfortable reality of Middle Eastern politics that a powerful state (see Saddam's Iraq, Afghanistan under the Taliban) is much more conducive to relative peace and stability than democracy. America's Iraq policy should heed this lesson. The War on Terrorism is supposed to be pursuing this peace and stability, not facilitating the popular election of the very Islamofascists who wish to kill us.

Perhaps through years of peace and education, the sons and daughters of the current Iraqi insurgents will be more tolerant in their religious attitudes. Perhaps then, possibly hundreds of years from now, they will realize the benefits of a liberal republic and the secular system which has brought so much value to the United States. Until that day, however, it is foolish to force a democracy on the Iraqi citizens without the impact severely harming the United States.

America must respect human nature. We should allow the Iraqis to deliver themselves a tolerant and peaceful government whenever they choose to do it themselves, and when it will not elect killers. It is the most obvious point of all: a people who truly desire a democratic government should be creating it themselves. In the meantime, American soldiers should not be dying in order to put Muqtada al-Sadr on a ballot.

Justin graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Information and Computer Science from the University of California at Irvine in 2004. Justin serves as the Deputy Editor of the Prometheus Insitute and has been on the staff since the Institutes inception. Justin is an expert in internet research and development, and plans to graduate with an M.B.A. from the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California Irvine in 2009. His interests include swimming, meditating, and low stakes games of Hi/Lo Crazy Pineapple at the Bicycle Casino.

Email: jhartfield@prometheusinstitute.net