Iraq and Machiavelli

James Holmes starts his article by stating how demolishing a totalitarian regime and instead instilling something more "humane" isn't as easy as we may think. The problem doesn't only lie with Sadaam Hussein but the Iraqis in general, who are prone to pick up a gun and fight rather than negotiate their political interests. James points out a main point in Machiavelli's novel is having a firm hand when transitioning from a totalitarian regime to a more human regime. Flip flopping ideas in the leadership of the transition will provoke these feelings to arise from the people going making the transition. Machiavelli also pointed out how leaving under a tyrant makes the virtues of the accustumed people less lively, spirited or intense and people who are without care and attention are more likely to fall under the first master they are exposed to. This idea is present in Iraq. Meaning people who are freed from tyranny are "newly freed beasts" who don't know how to reason their defense will rely on what they know. Machiavelli's idea was "'a corrupt city that lives under a prince can never be turned into a free one, even if that prince is eliminated along with all his line" and the only way to reach freedom for these people would be for a good person with virtue would help them transition from their bad habits.

James described two hypotheses for America's role in Iraq and judging how our military is still present in Iraq his latter hypothesis would be more correct. Iraqi people have bad habits that prevent them from developing a more humane means of government and America will be a part of Iraq's politics for years to come.