In September, President Bush said that an invasion would allow the Iraqi people to “shake off their captivity” so that “they can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.”

The best way the United States can inspire reform is by discontinuing support for corrupt and undemocratic regimes in the area, but I want to make another point here. It seems that the ideal of democracy has become less noble since Sept. 11.

According to some recent news articles, plans for a democratic Iraq have been scrapped. Apparently, the current Iraqi regime will stay, along with most of the people in it. “In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers,” says a Kurdish leader after meeting with U.S. officials (The Independent, “Kurdish leaders enraged by ‘undemocratic’ American plan to occupy Iraq,” Feb. 17).

Nearly three-fourths of the Iraqi population is excluded from the current government, and so nearly three-fourths of the people would have no say in the proposed government. This case also demonstrates that the number of Iraqis involved in planning the post-war government is basically zero.

Whatever happened to liberating Iraqis? Do we suppose that Bush never really cared all that much about democracy in the first place?

Bush has admitted that the largest anti-war demonstrations in history have had no influence on him. And while a majority of Americans favor giving inspections more time, the Bush administration is making an obvious push for an immediate war. Further, opinion polls show that a large majority of Europeans — especially French and Germans — feel that a war with Iraq is unjustified.

Bush is actually holding an anti-democratic position then when he pressures these governments to support it.

James Fiedler

Graduate

Mathematics