We might start by defining what we want to bring. We usually think just in terms of elections, as though our elections were a great model. However, there are a range of international agreements on human rights that we might want to focus on, rather than the procedural trappings of democracy. Didn't the eastern Bloc dissidents manage to use the Helsinki accords on human rights effectively during the last decade or two of the Soviet Union?
My imaginings at this point run as follows: We enforce the human rights that are incorporated in international declarations and treaties. Everything else is left to the Iraquis. Run immediate, universal suffrage elections for a constitutional convention. The convention can do anything it wants, but it must subscribe to the human rights declarations. It cannot therefore award men civic privileges over women or arrest people for political speech or persecute religious minorities. Non-Iraqui force/courts are available only to support human rights violations.
Would this "work"? There would be a lot of resistance on the part of those who support oppression (for example, religious fundamentalists the world over want to oppress women). On the other hand, a civic culture of respect for human rights is necessary for democracy, and I'm optimistic enough to think that most people will come to support human rights. I'm not optimistic enough to think there's a snowball's chance in hell of its even being tried.
-- Gail ^^^^^^^ CB: I agree with your proposal. Unfortunately, the main opponent of enforcing universal human rights and supporter of oppression in Iraq or anywhere would be the very Iraq-ruling United States that would have to agree to this plan. A main problem is that the generally recognized universal human rights contained in UN conventions include the right to a living -job, work or income, housing, health care, etc.- which would pretty much rule out a market economy.