posted
Saddam was a somewhat maniacal dictator who tormented his own people, hated America, and was attempting to dominate the Middle East with military might. On the other hand, he was a secular leader, enemies with the fundamentalist terrorists we are fighting these days. He was largely contained by us, had no friends among the neighboring Middle Eastern nations, and was unpopular with large segments of his own people. He wanted WMDs but apparently didn't actually have any.
Now that he's gone, we should really consider whether whatever will replace him will be more or less dangerous. After all, we have a habit of putting our worst enemies in power.
The plan is to put democracy in Iraq, but the people there dislike us more and more as time passes. In other Middle Eastern nations, it is their lack of democracy that keeps them pro-American, as the people overwhelmingly dislike us, but the governments remain afraid of us. If we give the power to the people in Iraq, does anyone doubt they'd elect anti-American leaders soon enough? What's more, considering the support of fundamentalist Islam in the area, it seems likely to be the sort of anti-Americanism that supports groups like al Qaeda, and the sort of government that would be much more popular among neighboring nations. Furthermore, we'd have no excuse to attack an Iraqi democracy that we set up, like we did with Saddam.
In short, we could be setting up paradise for al Qaeda. After all, Iraq is right next to Saudi Arabia - al Qaeda's homeland, and is far more rich in resources than Afghanistan was. They could even resurrect Saddam's old WMD programs for real this time, once we're gone. Al Qaeda seems to recognize this - making Iraq it's primary battleground and sending foreign fanatics flowing into Iraq.
Isn't this a good reason to treat Iraq very carefully, and not remove our troops too quickly?
quote: What's more, considering the support of fundamentalist Islam in the area, it seems likely to be the sort of anti-Americanism that supports groups like al Qaeda, and the sort of government that would be much more popular among neighboring nations.
Well, and part of THAT problem is there are different TYPES of "fundamentalist Islam" in Iraq. They have their own internal conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites, who believe in vastly different forms of leadership. The Shiites believe you must be a direct descendent of the prophet to lead. THey combine religious and political leadership as one. The Sunnis keep those two areas more separate. Neither of those two groups respect the rights of the Kurds in the north. So there will alway be some type of internal conflict -- who do we chose to put in charge?
posted
As long as the US troops are in Iraq, any government that is established will be perceived by much of the Islamic world as a US puppet government. This will be objectionable to both Islamic fundamentalists who are opposed to western influence in general and to Arab nationalists who are opposed to colonialism.
As long as the US troops are in Iraq, both our troops and the government will be prime targets for terrorist and revolutionaries. History suggests that under these circumstances, the government will be forced toward more and more oppressive measures in order to maintain order. The more oppressive the government becomes, the more its opposision will grow. It will be like trying to keep water from leaking between your fingers by squeezing it tighter. The harder the US troops and Iraqi government try to route out opposition cells, the more they will fuel the fire of those who already hate the US. The situation is inherently unstable.
Ultimately, the US citizens will get fed up with the loss of our soldiers lives and the expense and we will pull out. When that happens, the govenment will no longer be able to maintain control and will likely be replaced by the most anti-US government imaginable. The longer we stay, the worse it will be.
The only course that is likely to salvage the situation, is to replace US forces with a combined UN/Arab league force which does not include any one involved in the coalition of the willing. If the UN and Arab league then immediately oversee an election for represenatives to a constitutional convention and help to negotiate a constitution that is acceptable to all the Iraqi factions it might lead to a stable govenment in Iraq. This will never happen as long as US troops are in place and the US insists on maintaining control of rebuilding the country.
This will never happen as long as Neo-conservatives hold political power in this country.
[ October 28, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you don't think that perhaps if we give up too much control to the UN & especially the Arab League they might put a government hostile to us in place out of pique? They don't seem to have any reason to like us either.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac, That is certainly possible, but I still think that we have a better chance that way than we do with US troops on the ground. The Arab league and some factions of the UN are certainly POd with us right now, but countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudia Arabia are unlikely to support a radical anti US government. The UN is unlikely to support a radical anti-western government.
Besides that, I am not suggesting that either the Arab legue or the UN install a government in Iraq. I am suggesting that they may still have the credibility to help maintain peace in Iraq while the Iraqi's write their own constitution and select their own leaders.
The US has lost this credibility. That is the problem. No matter what the US troops do to establish a government, a large faction of the Iraqi people will believe that the resulting government is a US puppet which will inevitably lead to collapse of the govenment.
We simply do not have the credibility in Iraq right now to complete the process. If we really want Iraq to be a self governing, progressive country than we have to turn the job over to someone who has a chance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think what is becoming clear (although unfortunately not for the first time) is that in all but a small handfull of cases, "nationbuilding" is a load of crap. The idea that a country can invade and conquer another country and then set up a soverign government in the conquered country is practically laughable as far as i'm concerned. Yes, it happened in Japan and Germany, but those are the ONLY two examples i've ever heard (not to say there aren't more of course).
Just because i'm feeling like doling out some "i told you so's", i would like to point out that the american security situation as regards international terrorism has declined drastically since we started this little war. Iraq began as a relatively stable soverign country and has been transformed into a messy extension of the US. As such it is the perfect staging ground for the very terrorism we were trying to reduce. We are now targets in a landscape we neither control nor understand, and our presence in the country is creating more and more support for terrorists.
however US security is affected by the future of iraq, it should be clear that our current national security has been drastically damaged by the whole fiasco.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
