"There are no liberators: the People liberate themselves"

[Zorro]

I have decided to open up several cans of worms, release lots of cats from bags and generally stir up a great big cauldron of steaming dung by responding to the following suggestion by Ben Hicks in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176282

If you do have a workable alternative to saving the Iraqi people which doesn't involve war, I'd be interested in hearing it and debating its merits.

Now, this thread's subject line is a Che Guevara, thereby suggesting that this plan may not be very mainstream and is even probably a little bit radical, and almost certainly far too idealistic.

The thing is that Humanity progresses through people coming up with pink and fluffy ideas that seem insane at the time, then people doggedly try to apply them, stray from their purpose, the idea is distorted, people make mistakes along the way. But eventually, we arrive somewhere better than we would have if nobody had tried to do something completely insane. I offer as an example of this Mr Jesus Christ's suggestion that we should all try being nice to each other for a change. God knows that we have made a mess of that along the way, but overall, we're a lot less nasty than we were 2000 years ago, and still working on it.

The other day, a couple of my friends (pro-war types) asked the same question as Ben Hicks, and this was my response:

One of the reasons
for which so many third world countries are a screwed up as they are is that
we spent the best part of a century trying to mould them in our image based
on the assumption that this was without any possible doubt the best way of
doing things. And this is the same. Well why not try to leave all the people
the f*** alone and let them elaborate a system that suits them, that is
legitimised by the fact that they chose it themselves? Of course, this is a
long-term solution, but I don't think that there are many lasting
quick-fixes for this sort of thing. It took the French 170 years to pass
from being an absolute monarchy to a modern democracy, but now it endures
because it's what they chose for themselves, with all the deviations and
mistakes along the way.

Take Iran for instance. Until the 1950s, Persia was making its way towards
being a proper progressive democracy, under its own steam. Only they decided
that it was vital for their development to reclaim all the industry and
resources that were owned or operated by European and American companies
(they were right). We weren't having that, so we imposed an absolute
monarchy that was sympathetic to the West on them. "Here you go chaps, you
don't want this corrupt and weak government, you want this Mohammed Rezzah
Pavlavi Shah guy! Trust us!". Well they grew pissed off at being dicked over
again, but the democratic movement had been discredited by ourselves, so the
guys who ousted the Shah were the Islamists. These guys are still in power
in the form of the Revolutionary Council. But they're old, and the next
bunch of guys don't think like them, and are set to start up something like
the original plan again as soon as these guys pop their clogs. In the
meantime, they have a bastard government that we don't like, but if we just
wait, the place will sort itself out, on its own terms, and the result will
endure.

Saddam's old. He essentially governs by terror, Stalin style. Had we left
him alone, he would have bought the farm too, and the next bunch of rulers
would pay lip-service to Comrade Hussein, but you would have the same sort
of thing as happened in Russia when Stalin died. All the Hussein cronies
would be removed and a process of de-Ba'athification would take place. Once
again, you'd have to wait, but it would happen.

Leave all these people the hell alone to form their own destinies.

I'd like to add to this that offering effective assistance to subversive groups would speed things along nicely. If George Bush Senior had actually properly supported the insurrection in 1991 as he said he would, we probably wouldn't have a war on our hands now.

Amongst their more polite reactions were that I was a "pinko fruitloop".

And because I am an idiot, I shall now expose myself to having my cyber-arse virtually kicked by 33,000 Dopers.

[bayonet1976]

Interesting source for your quote Zorro. As you know Guevara was an argentinian who fought in the Cuban revolution. By following his own logic, through a tortuous path to be sure, he should've stayed home.

But on to your argument. I'm sort of, but not quite in agreement with you. In another discussion I told you that I was born and raised in Castro's Cuba, and this is the source of my dilemma here. While I was watching the scenes of Iraqis celebrating and toppling the statue of Hussein, my wife and I commented that it wasn't hard to imagine the same thing happening in Cuba. But we also both agreed that it would just about be the worse thing in the world to see foreign troops marching down El Paseo del Prado.

But his probably bears more thought. As you correctly pointed out after Stalin's death the USSR went through a "rectification" period, where Stalin's excesses were more or less made public and his image brought down a few pegs. But the USSR itself did not change. It continued to be a totalitarian state. So then I have to ask, was it worth the pain and suffering, and the loss of human potential of the intervening 45 years between the death of Stalin and the fall of the USSR worth it?

Probably to some, but not to those who had to live in the USSR during that time. Considering the breadth and scope of Iraqs repressive apparatus it's reasonable to assume that after Saddam's death the dictatorship itself would've probably endured. Much as has happened in North Korea. The generations of Iraqis that will not have to grow up under Saddam's rule are reason enough to be happy for the US/UK action.

Of course the US had its own reasons for going into Iraq, and liberating the Iraqis may have been low on the list, I don't think this is the case but let's consider it for the argument. So what? The end result is beginning to look pretty good for the Iraqis. I think some of the arguments we're hearing about Iraq's inability to create its own government after Saddam's rule is a remnant of colonialist thinking. Leaders will emerge, much as they did in eastern Europe.

To drag the argument back to the OP, some people liberate themselves, and some people take liberty when it's presented to them. Nothing wrong with either one.

[RandySpears]

Interesting source for your quote Zorro. As you know Guevara was an argentinian who fought in the Cuban revolution. By following his own logic, through a tortuous path to be sure, he should've stayed home.

There's a certain difference between an individual choosing to fight and an invading army for sure?

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by RandySpears
There's a certain difference between an individual choosing to fight and an invading army for sure?

Well, enough individuals together make an army. Guevara basically died on a mission to export "revolution", and many of his band were Cubans. So it seems that he sure talked the talk but failed to walk the walk, at least as far as this quote is concerned.

[Zorro]

Hello there Mister Bayonet. I should have guessed that you'd turn up here.

From what I gather, Guevara never turned up anywhere with enough people to effectively wage any kind of war. The idea was to provide assistance (and a little propaganda) to movements that already existed, and to make them more effective, thereby actually helping the People to Liberate Themselves (we're going to need an acronym for this, or a new word). I don't believe there was any intention of Cubans taking in hand the reins of power and then handing them to whoever they liked.

But for the time being, leave Che aside, as great a guy as he was. Unfortunately he's dead, but there is a fair amount of evidence that his spirit lives on. I'm not a Marxist by the way, but I am opposed to the sort of imperialism that we're seeing a resurgence of right now.

What you said about the prospect of foreign troops marching through Havana is important. If the US invaded Cuba and toppled Castro, there would be a period of Euphoria, rejoicing, and then it would dawn on people that they're colonised again, like they were before 1959. And I think that the same will happen in Iraq if we just put a government that we like there. Now if Cuba is just left alone, Castro will die, he will be great hero, there will be statues and medals. Then all the positive things from the Castro years will be retained, and the rest changed, and the Cubans will be better off, freeer, and also maybe quite happy that they did it more or less their way, and don't owe anyone.

The bottom line is that people do not like to be invaded for whatever reason.

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by Zorro
Hello there Mister Bayonet. I should have guessed that you'd turn up here.

Yup, it seems that you, Randy, and I are the communist/anti-communist cabal. As near as I can tell I'm firmly in the anti-communist side, don't know about the two of you.

One more thing about Guevara, when he turned up in Bolivia he was leading some 30 Cubans. Not an army to be sure, but a pretty big group. Most of his guerrila force was made up of non-Bolivians, which is one of the reasons he had not success whatsoever in his little incursion.

As for the invasion bit, there were a whole lot of Cubans "invading" Angola, also for the purposes of "liberating", and that was most certainly an army.

Do you really want to get into a dsicussion about the colonization of Cuba? Let's face it, Cuba has been a colony of one superpower or another since 1492. First Spain, the US, then the USSR, and now it's well on it's way to becoming a Spanish/Italian/Mexican colony. At least by what I think your definition of "colony" is.

But back to the point of your OP. I agree that most people would not want their country invaded, however there's a whole lot of people that would see an invasion as a doorway to liberation. And would be grateful for not having to live under a repressive dictatorship anymore, even at the price of an invasion.

[John Mace]

I will always remember this image from the 1989 fall of Communism in the USSR and eastern Europe. An East German woman, probably in her late 50s, was interviewed at the crumbling Berlin Wall. She was crying heavily and said: "I'm crying because I'm so happy. Not for me. My life is over and has been ruined. But I'm crying because now my daughter can live her life." I probably shouldn't have put that in quotes because I'm paraphrasing what she said. I don't remember the exact words.

I'm giving us (the US) a big benefit of the doubt right now that we'll get it right in Iraq. That may mean that democracy doesn't work and they end up with another dictator in 10 yrs or so, but we won't run it like a US colony.

[bayonet1976]

By the way, just called me bayonet. As you probably can tell that is not my real name, consequently no need to append Mr. to it.

[Zorro]

Originally posted by John Mace

I'm giving us (the US) a big benefit of the doubt right now that we'll get it right in Iraq. That may mean that democracy doesn't work and they end up with another dictator in 10 yrs or so, but we won't run it like a US colony.

No, the US will not run it like a colony. The US doesn't do straightforward colonialism, and with the odd temporary exception never had. However, the US has been pretending since around WW1 that it is not an imperial power when it blatantly is. It doesn't invade countries and annex them or directly run them, it does so through coercion sometimes, but mostly through its ludicrously disproportionate economic power.

Don't misunderstand me, the US is generally a force for good, but I'm really worried right now. The current government's ideology is frightening and dangerous. It rests on two tenets:
1. By its very nature the US is a Good Thing. Therefore it is essential that it should remain the foremost economic and military power in the world, and challenges to this state of affairs cannot be tolerated.
2. The US, as sole global superpower, faces different problems and has different responsabilities from any other country in the world. Therefore, it does not always have to obey the same rules as the rest of the world.

Now whereas there have always been nations that have been arrogant (and paranoid?) enough to hold opinions like this, I can't think of any that ever enjoyed such overwhelming and unchallenged power as the US does now. I know it's a trite statement, but "absolute power corrupts absolutely". The US doesn't hold absolute power over the rest of the world, but maybe far too much power corrupts enough to cause a serious problem.

[RandySpears]

Well, enough individuals together make an army. Guevara basically died on a mission to export "revolution", and many of his band were Cubans. So it seems that he sure talked the talk but failed to walk the walk, at least as far as this quote is concerned.

No, not really. The pertinent factor here is whether you come with a (foreign) force that in itself is powerful enough to threat/overthrow/invade a country, or at least if your goal is towards that effect.

Ole Che on his "mission" were hoping for the south americans to rise up themselves. He wanted to lead by example. (Correct me if i'm wrong)

He was mistaken. He died.

[Ben Hicks]

Originally posted by Zorro
Saddam's old. He essentially governs by terror, Stalin style. Had we left him alone, he would have bought the farm too, and the next bunch of rulers would pay lip-service to Comrade Hussein, but you would have the same sort of thing as happened in Russia when Stalin died. All the Hussein cronies would be removed and a process of de-Ba'athification would take place.


This seems to me to be the crux of your OP. It seems reasonable to me that power would have passed from Saddam to his son Qusay who, if reports coming from Iraq are in any way accurate, is just as bloodthirsty and despotic as his old man. How would a process of de-Ba'athification actually take place if Qusay were to keep his father stranglehold on power? How would such a transfer of power be prevented?

[Zorro]

This is of course speculation, however...

As under Stalin, everyone who was until the last few days in the upper echelons of the Ba'ath part lived in permanent terror, as did Stalin's entourage. And as far as I know, Saddam's sons are even more hated that their father. Now if I were one of the top Ba'ath guys, I would hold my peace until Saddam kicked the bucket and do something unpleasant to his sons when they piped up to take his job, simply out of a sense of self-preservation, political ideology notwithstanding. Saddam's rule rests on terror and a cult of personality. Take away the personality, and people will no longer be quite so keen to impose the terror.

Of course, that's all academic now.

[Zorro]

RandySpears, this was what I understood too. A top-of-the-range uncompromising idealistic dreamer. I would have loved to have a few pints with him.

[John Mace]

Zorro:

It could've just as likely gone the way of NK, which is just as much of a brutal totalitarian state under Kim II as it was under Kim I.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Anybody stop to consider that if a "Che Guevara" type person were to walk around in Iraq while Saddam was in power, he would disappear before anyone in Iraq would know of his existance? To wit, how many Che Guevaras do you think have lived and died in total anonymity in Iraq these past 30 years?

and in all frankness, If it werent for Saddam fooling around with the idea of obtaining WoMD, the US would still be waiting for the people of Iraq to rise up themselves. Of course the bloody and ruthless suppressions of the uprisings after the first gulf war was a bitter disappointment. It was a clear signal that the Iraqi people needed outside help.

[Beagle]

To extend on X~'s remarks about the disappeared, 1984 was all about the ability of a totalitarian regime's ability to survive indefinitely, or not. If the repression is sufficiently severe and widespread, what can people do without facing immediate reprisals from the state?

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Anybody stop to consider that if a "Che Guevara" type person were to walk around in Iraq while Saddam was in power, he would disappear before anyone in Iraq would know of his existance?

This is pretty much what happened to Guevara in Cuba. Castro sent him on a series of missions to "export the revolution", and in the process exiled him without any possibility of return. Castro and Saddam didn't stay in power by being stupid, they stayed in power by being ruthless and eliminating any competition, actual or potential.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by bayonet1976
Castro and Saddam didn't stay in power by being stupid, they stayed in power by being ruthless and eliminating any competition, actual or potential.

Saddam takes this ruthlessness several steps farther. He not only eliminates competitors both real and potential, but he eliminates imagined competitors as well, along with their families, friends, associates and sometimes even whole villages. You got to respect the efficacy of his regime when he can hold elections, get 100% of the vote and no one questions it in Iraq.

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Saddam takes this ruthlessness several steps farther. He not only eliminates competitors both real and potential, but he eliminates imagined competitors as well, along with their families, friends, associates and sometimes even whole villages. You got to respect the efficacy of his regime when he can hold elections, get 100% of the vote and no one questions it in Iraq.

Hey, you may be right. In the last elections Castro only got 97% of the vote, but no one questioned that either.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by bayonet1976
Hey, you may be right. In the last elections Castro only got 97% of the vote, but no one questioned that either.

"Mr. President, the people love you! In the last election you got 97% of the vote. Only 3% of the population voted against you. What more could you want?"

"Their names."

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Thats exactly what Saddam did and it was the following elections that netted him the 100%. Fancy that. :(

[Zorro]

I wasn't really aiming for a discussion of the relative awfulness of the world's despots.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Ben Hicks
This seems to me to be the crux of your OP. It seems reasonable to me that power would have passed from Saddam to his son Qusay who, if reports coming from Iraq are in any way accurate, is just as bloodthirsty and despotic as his old man. How would a process of de-Ba'athification actually take place if Qusay were to keep his father stranglehold on power? How would such a transfer of power be prevented?

You're making assumptions here. Qusay may be even more ruthless, but he alone can only do so much harm. Without the establishment WANTING him to succeed his father, he won't be able to take over. You're assuming that all those Ba'ath people loyal to Saddam will also be loyal to Qusay. You're assuming none of them thinks he himself should be rewarded for his loyalty to Saddam by succeeding him and has some support for that claim. Qusay may be just as ruthless, or even more, but that does not mean he has as much support.