That's the headline on the cover of a Collier's magazine dated November 27, 1943. It's an article written when Italy was in the throes of a post-war state similar to that in Iraq. Here's the article summary, straight from page 11:
Besides the adults who are members of the Party, Italy has a whole generation which reached maturity under Fascism. Re-educating this group and settling antagonisms which threaten to produce a civil war are the big problems in the creation of a democratic Italy
Such doom and gloom. Sound familiar? Substitute Saddam for Fascism and Iraq for Italy and this could have been written this morning in any number of mainstream press outlets.
Here are some passages about Marshal Badoglio, the man leading Italy before their first elections — the equivalent of Iraq's Allawi:
There's so little leadership left in Italy that up to mid-October, Badoglio hadn't been able to find enough men, pending opening of the jail doors, to fill out his cabinet.* * *
But he has guaranteed the British and American governments that, upon his installation in Rome, he will form a government of all shadings of public opinion, excluding all Fascists or pro-Fascists. As soon as possible after Italy's liberation, elections will be held to permit Italians to choose their own government.
How did Italy ever make it? And what's this "British and American governments"? Why isn't there a broader-based coalition?
There's no timeline for elections there. Parts of Italy, though Mussolini was toppled, were still controlled by the Germans. Badoglio didn't have peace throughout the whole country yet. Parts were a "no-go" zone, as Kerry complained about parts of Iraq.
Remember Kerry's complaints that Alawi had to rule from behind a walled compound:
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
super discovery - excellent perspective. I tried to convey some of the same idea here
2 - JohnnyLunchBox
Well done.
3 - Bob A. Booey
We're talking about two completely different cultures and traditions with entirely different forces at work here.
Read Robert Putnam's book on Italy's unique democratic culture ... I think it's called "How Do They Do It?" or something like that.
This was another poor analogy.
That is all.
4 - Eric Olsen
I don't believe the analogy here is so much between Italy and Iraq, but between very similar defeatist and fatalistic assessments of a given people's ability to make the basic judgments required to rule themselves. I think the similarity in the language between these critiques of different peoples 60 years apart speaks volumes
5 - Hal Pawluk
Justene's statements:
seem to be clearly comparing Italy and Iraq.
6 - Eric Olsen
I believe she is saying there: "Italy is now free, if we stay the course and don't heed the reamrably similar doomsayers, Iraq will be also"
so, yes, she is comparing them, but the analogy, specifically, is between the similar orotund declarations of the impossibility of either country becoming successfully democratic and ruling themselves
7 - Justene
Eric's got the point. Putnam's book was written 50 years after the Collier's piece. Had the gloom and doom of the article been correct, I doubt he would have made mention of their fine democratic tradition. In 50 years, Iraq may be the model of democracy in a country that had no such tradition. The point is that we do not know. I believe democracy and the chance for it is worth the struggle.
8 - JohnnyLunchBox
Damn, now I have to go look up the word "orotund".
Thanks a lot, Eric.
9 - Bob A. Booey
Putnam's thesis about Italian democratic culture was that it long pre-existed the rebuilding after WWII. Economics and control over the military drove Mussolini's rise, but the historical democratic culture was a long-standing process of accommodation and compromise, especially at the local level before Mussolini and afterwards. So according to Putnam, that Collier's magazine article would be wrong in its cultural assessment of the hold of fascism on Italy. It's true that history probably doesn't look too kindly on the myopia of journalistic reportage on many issues.
Iraq has no such culture in recent history and entirely different structural conditions than post-war Italy.
Contrary to popular belief, we don't yet live in Orwell's 1984. Saying optimistic words of success burrowed into our brains from state announcements doesn't make them true or impose an ordered reality upon a chaotic world. While we all hope for the best in Iraq, all the socio-economic, political, and cultural indicators for democratization are remarkably poor when compared against the international historical record.
Everyone hates doom-sayers, but if this site is still up in 60 years, Justene's post won't be an "I told you so" moment.
The words used, by the way, are not "remarkably similar." Find me a copy of today's New York Times (or one from any other era) and point me to any nation undergoing regime change -- particularly after war -- and I'll find you basically the same quotes. And you know what? Most of the time those quotes were right and the new regimes we were so happy about failed.
We hope for the best, but history demonstrates democratization is a tough, tough process with difficult results that rarely proceeds in a smooth, ordered path. And there's always the question of whether it's TRUE democratization -- the likely choice we'll face in Iraq, as other nations have seen, is whether the new state (if it's stable), is truly democratic in any major respect. Force and democracy are largely inimical and democracies founded on force and occupation rarely take root.
But that's the challenge undertaken and the reality is that we won't be around for Iraq's true struggle to maintain democracy. We'll stick around to try and keep stability and start the institutions in some way so we can get the hell out. We won't be able to teach Iraqis democracy nor are we willing to, no matter how much of a military presence we have in the short term. The only hope is that whatever form their state (or states, since the prospect of division is very likely) takes finds its own path in a way that is closer to our idea of freedom. That's a long way to go.
That is all.
10 - Bob A. Booey
Fundamentally, the war isn't truly about "democracy." It's about strategy.
"Democracy," "freedom" and "liberty" are just buzz words meant to evoke emotion. Very few people in the foreign policy establishment or even in the neo-con think tanks realistically expect something like functioning democracy in Iraq. And that's OK with them. This war is really about strategy, about eventually having a regime (probably not democratic) that will be amenable to American influence, allow future American military deployment (if necessary, especially since our "friends" the Saudis are helping to show our troops the way out the door off of their soil), and protect American oil interests. That's the true goal and there are no Pollyannas in the Bush team with rosy illusions, despite all public statements about "freedom" that are apparently so effective in forming associations in the minds of people like Olsen and Justene.