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:
[I]n what is left of Italy -- four provinces in the heel of the boot . . . [the king] and Badoglio live in damp, unheated villas without running water.
Were there complaints that Badoglio was a puppet government? Of course:
Members of [the Communist and Socialist] organizations to whom I talked in Cairo, Algiers and here in Italy, complain that by "setting up" the king and Badoglio, the Allies have not given the Italians leaders who symbolize the true democtratic sentiment of the people.
The conclusion to the article expresses the hopelessness of the situation:
In spite of all indications of progress, Italy's ultimate destiny is clouded in uncertainties. Italy is a nation with a glorious Roman past, and a tragic Fascist present, and an unfathomable future. . . . Compared to these problems, the matter of forming a new government in freed Italy, with or without Badoglio, fades into unimportance.
Just as holding elections in Iraq doesn't matter with terrorists still in control of Fallujah?
Italy is a free nation now. Iraq will be too. We have to stay the course.
Posted by Justene Adamec at September 25, 2004 07:52 AM | TrackBackOf course we have to stay the course. (I don't think we should have started down it, but once we did ...) But that does not mean we shouldn't question the way we're navigating it.
Posted by: aphrael at September 25, 2004 11:16 AM (Permalink)It's interesting to use Italy as a point of comparison. Yes, Italy remains free. Yes, Italy has not been subject to a military coup. However, Italy's governments are noted for instability, frequent elections, and numerous political parties.
If democracy takes root in Iraq, it will be closer to the Italian/Israeli model than the British/American model.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at September 25, 2004 11:03 PM (Permalink)Thank you for your remembering of Italian past: yes it's true, we were a destroyed country, in need for everything, and coming from 20 years of tyranny.
After more than sixty year, a lot of my nationals are so stupid to forget this, but the truth is that we received freedom as a gift after a lost war, and that we needed five years (from '43 to '48) to achieve peace.
My wishes and my prayers are that Iraqi people will be as lucky as mine, and that they could live in a free and unstable country, like Italy is :-)
I am reading a book from Hudson Institute "Building Free Societies in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is noted that two of the three Axis countries have benefitted from (direct assistance from America) as I read it. The third Axis country seems to stay very close to some myth of superiority. My perception may be radical and many other evangelistic (protestant) voters have missed the chance to have a Roman Catholic President. What is so different now that a Roman Catholic American candidate was defeated and the voices who contest the vote seem to be mostly Roman Catholic or sympathisers of organized labor, and that the same indicate stupidity and insanity has won over my vote? Can you tell me what changed after America went home in the 1940's? Didn't Hitler proclaim his opponents to be stupid and insane? Will American states continue to question sanity as a method of determining the privilege for motor vehicle drivers who challenge their state's incompetent; or inherently Roman Catholic; leaders lack of balance in deciding who gets privileges? Is it not well that a Roman Catholic lost the election for president?
Posted by: Ernest Larner at January 3, 2005 05:57 PM (Permalink)