Letter: After Saddam
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: When Tony Blair and Bill Clinton talk of encouraging a new regime in Iraq, most people probably assume this means democracy. This may not be the case.
After the 1991 Gulf conflict, former US Defence Secretary James Schlessinger indicated that the US did not disagree with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who did not consider democracy appropriate for Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia is a deeply repressive country.
The only fully-fledged democracy in the region is Israel, hardly an example Arab states would look to. Democracy itself threatens the existence of all the other regimes in the Middle East. If democracy is appropriate for Iraq, why is it not also appropriate for, Saudi Arabia, or for Algeria, where it would have resulted in a fundamentalist Islamic government.
If not democracy then what? The governments need to define their positions. Would the British public support an alternative regime which was not a democracy?
DAVID COCKBURN
Taunton, Somerset
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments