why do the Iraqi protesters want us to leave?

[horhay_achoa]

I want to start by saying I don't really know anything about this war, or politics in general, so I am not going to be able to contribute much to this debate. I was going to post it in GQ, but I think the subject matter would have turned it into a debate anyway, so I am going to post it here...

Why are there so many Iraqi people protesting to get the U.S. out of Iraq? I mean just last week they were dancing in the streets, now they want us to leave? The thing that confuses me the most is this: what do they think is going to happen if we leave? I think the most likely result of us leaving would be that Saddam, or people loyal to him, would take their remaining tanks and military supplies and use them to get back into power. The second most likely scenario I can see is that some other dictator rises to power.
It just seems to me that a legitimate government has no chance of forming out of total anarchy. At least with U.S. forces there to keep the bad guys from strong arming their way back to the top, there is a chance that some form of democracy could get started. I don't know...

[tomndebb]

Because they did not see Cheney's memo?

[Duckster]

The demonstration was peaceful, news agencies reported, but it provided dramatic new evidence that the ouster of Saddam Hussein's secular government has unleashed pent-up religious sentiment, especially among the country's long-repressed Shiite Muslim majority. In the absence of strong government, Islam often provides the organizing principle, and the civic institutions, of Muslim societies.

Converging from several mosques, the demonstrators carried banners with such slogans as "No Bush, No Saddam, Yes to Islam," and "No to America, No to Secular State, Yes to Islamic State." Organizers said the demonstrators included both Shiite Muslims and Sunnis, who represent the majority branch of Islam is most Muslim countries but a minority in Iraq.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr18.html

Does this help?

[Payton's Servant]

because America is The Most EVIL And GREATEST Of All SATANS!!!!!!!!!!

[jbird3000]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
I mean just last week they were dancing in the streets, now they want us to leave?

Because those are different people?

"I mean just last month America wanted to invade Iraq, now I see an anti-war protest?"

[tomndebb]

I mean just last week they were dancing in the streets,

Some of them were dancing in the streets. Others were shooting at us, trying to blow us up, and generally condemning out high-handed attitude.

While they probably are glad that the Ba'ath party is pretty well destroyed, many are quite fearful that the U.S. intends to set up a new puppet regime. (The prime figure hinted to be the U.S. choice to head up the interim government was originally chosen simply to organize the infrastructure while a government was created. He then began lobbying certain members of the GOP to be allowed to run the whole show, even though he has not lived in the country for 30 years, or so.)

We may do the right thing, but they have no way of knowing that. Given our sterling examples of Diem in Vietnam, the Shah in Iran, Armas in Guatemala, and our support for such democratic-minded individuals as Marcos, Suharto, Batista, Somoza, and others, I think their fears are not unexpected.

[horhay_achoa]

Originally posted by Duckster
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr18.html

Does this help?

Does this mean that the protesters think that a legitimate and fair government would form just by following the teachings of Islam? I don't know much about Islam, but I am sure the main pillars are similar to most other religions. Be kind, don't steal, don't kill...blah, blah, blah. If that is the case then, yeah, maybe they don't need us. They can work it out, but are they really that naive? Can they honestly think that religion will guide them through this? Do they really believe that no one will try to rise to power?

[blowero]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
It just seems to me that a legitimate government has no chance of forming out of total anarchy. At least with U.S. forces there to keep the bad guys from strong arming their way back to the top, there is a chance that some form of democracy could get started. I don't know...

They don't want our help. Maybe you didn't know this, but the Arab world hates the U.S. government. A lot of it has to do with our support for Isreal. It might help to understand if you take a step back and let go of your black & white thinking where the U.S. are the "good guys" and the Arabs are the "bad guys". You can't expect the people of Iraq to view it that way. They don't want the U.S. to rule their country, because they see it as the Christian world trying to take over the Muslim world. They hated Saddam, but a lot of them hate the U.S. even more.

[Tars Tarkas]

they want to be able to determine their own destiny, not have another destiny thrust upon them. Of course idiots will try to rise in power, that happens everywhere.

[blowero]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
Does this mean that the protesters think that a legitimate and fair government would form just by following the teachings of Islam? I don't know much about Islam, but I am sure the main pillars are similar to most other religions. Be kind, don't steal, don't kill...blah, blah, blah. If that is the case then, yeah, maybe they don't need us. They can work it out, but are they really that naive? Can they honestly think that religion will guide them through this? Do they really believe that no one will try to rise to power?

Yeah, but again - look at it from their point of view. They don't want a U.S. puppet in power, either.

[The Calculus of Logic]

Partially because many of them don't like our culture or what it stands for (the secularist non-islam, the nonthe support of israel, the modernization), many have been raised to scapegoat us for their own countries screw ups and believe in conspiracy theories and as a result don't trust/like us. Plus most don't want to be humiliated by living under US occupation.

Read some of Fouad Ajami's articles.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200301...bs-future.html

I'd suggest reading Daniel Pipes as well.

Sad part is if we leave who knows what'll happen. maybe a civil war like Somalia will take hold and warlords will rise to power. we should bring in foreigners to run things.

[horhay_achoa]

Originally posted by blowero
They don't want our help. Maybe you didn't know this, but the Arab world hates the U.S. government. A lot of it has to do with our support for Isreal. It might help to understand if you take a step back and let go of your black & white thinking where the U.S. are the "good guys" and the Arabs are the "bad guys". You can't expect the people of Iraq to view it that way. They don't want the U.S. to rule their country, because they see it as the Christian world trying to take over the Muslim world. They hated Saddam, but a lot of them hate the U.S. even more.

I do not think we are the "good guys" and the Arabs are the "bad guys". Some of people in the U.S. are good and some are bad, and the same applies to all other parts of the world. This is not the debate I was aiming for in the OP though. I know that not ALL Iraqis want us out. I was just wondering what the people that do want us out think is going to happen if we leave. Maybe the answer is that they think we are so "bad" that they are willing to face any consequences to have us out rather than let us help. Do you think that is the case?

[horhay_achoa]

Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic
we should bring in foreigners to run things.

I like that idea, but I assume there is some problem with that too?

[ElJeffe]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic
we should bring in foreigners to run things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like that idea, but I assume there is some problem with that too?

Yeah, like the group of people that could run things, and the group of people who the Iraqis wouldn't hate, are mutually exclusive. The best compromise between the two would likely be Turkey - they're at least Arab, and their own attempt at democracy seems to be going well - except Turkey would probably just go in and grab all the Kurdish territory.

We're just going to have to find someone the Iraqis can trust, and get their backing. The get the hell out as fast as we reasonably can.


Jeff

[John Mace]

Horhay:

There can be any number of reasons:

1. Some want to quickly fill the power vacuum themselves so they get their form of gov't, and not ours. I'm sure many want an Islamic state-- perhaps a backlash against SH's secularism.

2. Some may be truely anti-Western, anti-American and think we're there to steal their oil.

3. Iraq has a history of invasions, and of hating invaders. Like it or not, we are seen by many as invaders.

4. I'll bet that some ARE naiive and even if they don't want an Islamic state, think they can get their won democractic gov't going w/o our help.

[John Mace]

Jeff: Surely you know that Turks are Turks, not Arabs. BIG difference.

[blowero]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
Maybe the answer is that they think we are so "bad" that they are willing to face any consequences to have us out rather than let us help. Do you think that is the case?

Yes, I do. They aren't all of one mind, though. Some Iraqis have complained that the U.S. forces didn't do enough to keep order after toppling the government, while others just want them gone.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
The best compromise between the two would likely be Turkey - they're at least Arab, and their own attempt at democracy seems to be going well - except Turkey would probably just go in and grab all the Kurdish territory.

The Turks are not Arabs. They are Turkic. There is a large and growing fundamentalist movement there, too, putting a strain on their democracy on the order of the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey's southeast. They did mass troops along the border in clear preparation for what you suspect, though.

We're just going to have to find someone the Iraqis can trust, and get their backing. The get the hell out as fast as we reasonably can.

Good luck. Bush alienated all the plausible candidates beforehand - both the individual nations and the pre-eminent international organization.

Sorry, champ, he stuck us US taxpayers and terrorism targets with the entire responsibility for years to come, for better or worse. Many of us tried to explain that beforehand, too.

[ElvisL1ves]

horhay, Islamic law, called "Sharia", is well-established and codified, and even the basis for the effective law of several nations. While not necessarily desirable, implementing it is hardly a naive concept.

[blowero]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Sorry, champ, he stuck us US taxpayers and terrorism targets with the entire responsibility for years to come, for better or worse. Many of us tried to explain that beforehand, too.

Maybe the Little Red Hen got more than she bargained for.

[RandySpears]

ElJeffe
Yeah, like the group of people that could run things, and the group of people who the Iraqis wouldn't hate, are mutually exclusive. The best compromise between the two would likely be Turkey - they're at least Arab, and their own attempt at democracy seems to be going well - except Turkey would probably just go in and grab all the Kurdish territory.

I recall collounsberry pointing out that iraq was once ruled by the turks as part of the ottoman empire, and don't particularly like the idea of being so once more.

[horhay_achoa]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
horhay, Islamic law, called "Sharia", is well-established and codified, and even the basis for the effective law of several nations. While not necessarily desirable, implementing it is hardly a naive concept.

yes. I don't think implementing it would be naive, but to think that you can implement it without a government to enforce it seems naive to me. Not everyone is going to follow it just because it exists.

[ElvisL1ves]

Short version: Yup, Randy, the Arabs in Ottoman territory were subjects of the ruling Turks, and were encouraged by the British (see Lawrence of Arabia) to revolt as part of the allied WW1 strategy. Coupled with the rise of indigenous Turkish nationalism under Ataturk, the Arabs had even more reason to be wary that the Turks might want to reclaim their old territory, and the areas immediately adjacent to the new borders of Turkey certainly had the most reason to be wary.

Given the Turkish troop concentration on the Iraqi border, next to Kurdistan and its oil fields, that distrustful attitude certainly could not have reversed.

[bo989]

I'll have to agree with blowero on this one. Just because Saddam and his regime were 'bad' doesn't automatically mean that the US occupation is 'good.' The clear dichotomy of good versus evil that is so often played upon in Hollywood blockbusters doesn't exist in the real world. Many Iraqis may have hated Saddam and his cronies, but most of them (except the Kurds) hate the US just as much, if not more. That's what all of you 'liberators' need to understand. To understand how some of the Iraqis may be feeling, imagine if Hitler had been removed from power in Germany, only to be replaced by Satan himself. I'm not saying this is a just analogy, but I'm saying that that's how many Arabs feel. What's that saying again.... 'the lesser of two evils....'?

[John Mace]

Perhaps some Kuwaitis might want to administer Iraq. On second thought...

Just goes to show how ununinted the Arab world is. Expand that to the Islamic wrld and there are even MORE issues. Somewhat of an exageration, but the Israeli/Palestinian issue is about the only thing they DO agree on. Take that out of the picture, and the disunity will be even worse.

[blowero]

Originally posted by John Mace
Just goes to show how ununinted the Arab world is.

That's true. And if Bush continues his current course, we can look forward to an equally dis-united Western world as well.

[Valgard]

Suppose that you are part of a big family that is ruled by a nasty, abusive dad. Sure the garbage goes out on time but it's because he rules with his belt and the back of his hand. We're not talking a spanking once in a while, we're talking violent beatings.

Eventually the cops show up and haul dad off to jail. Wonderful, the rest of the family will sleep a little easier and the neighbors probably feel better as well.

OK, in this case of clear-cut "good guys" and "bad guys", how long is the family going to put up with a squadron of police officers living in the house and telling them how to run things?

[Frostillicus]

Maybe because we invaded and destroyed their country.

[Sam Stone]

Democracy is messy. There are no countries where everyone marches in lock-step with the same beliefs, unless they are totalitarian.

So from that standpoint, protests in Iraq should be music to our ears.

And protestors are always more visible than the 'silent majority'. Now, it may be that the majority of the people don't want us there, but that's not evidenced by protests in the streets. After all, in the U.S. hundreds of thousands marched against the war - it made the front page of all the papers. But that masked the fact that the war is supported by about 70% of the population.

[Early Out]

The irony of all this, of course, is that the U.S. will have spent tens of billions of dollars, damaged its relations with any number of allies, and angered a lot of other nations, all in order to get rid of a secular, brutal dictator. In its place, we're very likely to end up with another Islamic republic, along the lines of Iran. Gee, won't that be an improvement.

Remember, the Shiites are in the majority in Iraq, so if you believe in true democracy, and they vote to establish an Islamic republic, who's to say they can't have one?

[Dogface]

The last time a Western power ruled Iraq (and then ruled it through a puppet "monarchy") was when it was under the League of Nations "mandate" to the United Kingdom. Imagine all the worst abuses you can that attended the Pax Brittanica. Most of them happened in Iraq. The "king" installed over them was a foreigner--from the Hijaz in Arabia. The idea was that he could be "neutral". The result was that he was completely dependent upon his British leashmasters.

Likewise, the British dealt with popular uprisings by expedient methods like mustard gas. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/ira..._iraq_03.shtml)

Some excerpts:

Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas.

Indiscriminate air power was used to quell the revolt of the region's tribesmen, methods the British admitted did not win them friends and, as one of them said, implanted undying hatred of the British among the people of the area, and a desire for revenge.

After 1930, nominal "independence" was granted, but the UK still held military bases and insisted on the exclusive right to train Iraqi military--essentially making them a satellite of the British army, although that failed as a revolt during WWII illustrated. After the war, an outright British puppet was installed as prime minister and he ran things until 1958.

The longer we stay there, the more we will remind people of how the British did things, the more we will be seen as the new colonialist power.

We Americans have remarkably short memories. Most of us are completely ignorant of the horrid dog's breakfast that was made out of the "Middle East" by France and the UK after WWI.

[Declan]

First I am assuming that these protestors are Iraqi , and not some arabs from another country that just want to forment dissent against the occupation forces.

Second , Saddam knew if it came to a slugfest with America he would lose , evil despot that he was , he was practical in some respects. His whole mantra several days before basically the war ended ,was that the occupiers would eventually have to leave , and that the people are the ultimate power, yadda yadda.

So these individuals may be what are called "stay behinds" , whose job it is , to encourage dissent , media circus's , and eventually direct action in a prelude to an re-invasion of territory.

Then there is the people themselves , while saddam was ultimate dictator , he did require a certain amount of foot soldiers and lieutenants to get his policies implemented, these people are now out of work ,and probably needing a new job, very dissatisfied with an american govt.

Then the downtrodden , who now are able to put the hurt on the former lieutenants and such , who may have been told , no you can't go kill abdul , his wife , his kids , his cats and dogs , his budgie and whatever else they may desire , also may have a bit of a problem with an american administration.

Declan

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Payton's Servant
because America is The Most EVIL And GREATEST Of All SATANS!!!!!!!!!!

We're Number One! We're Number One!

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by John Mace
Perhaps some Kuwaitis might want to administer Iraq. On second thought...

It would be ironic, considering that the previous regime wanted Iraq and Kuwait to be united under a common government.

[Chaventh]

Your a dumb fucking cunt who deserves nothing but a fucking axe in the brain.(yes im very bored)

[John Mace]

Chav: Shouldn't that be "You're"? The post makes more sense that way.

[kniz]

Originally posted by Early Out
The irony of all this, of course, is that the U.S. will have spent tens of billions of dollars, damaged its relations with any number of allies, and angered a lot of other nations, all in order to get rid of a secular, brutal dictator. In its place, we're very likely to end up with another Islamic republic, along the lines of Iran. Gee, won't that be an improvement.

Remember, the Shiites are in the majority in Iraq, so if you believe in true democracy, and they vote to establish an Islamic republic, who's to say they can't have one?

Actually, Collounsbury says that Iran is presently in better shape than any other country in the region. They have been under an Islamic republic since the late '80s and the seeds of democracy have grown there. Now the majority of the people are too young to remember the Shah of Iran or about taking American hostages. They are getting tired to the Ayatollahs methods of ruling and change is in the air. The lesson is that they did it themselves and free from any of our help. We do not need to force democracy on Iraq, because it will either fail or have to be supported by us (which is the same as failure).

Also the Kuwaitis do not know how to do anything, since they are paid by the state and all work is done by workers from other countries.

[urban1a]

While they probably are glad that the Ba'ath party is pretty well destroyed, many are quite fearful that the U.S. intends to set up a new puppet regime.

Rather, the Ba'ath is no longer in control, rather than destroyed. A major concern I have is that the Republican Guards and Saddam feyadeen(sp?) have simply disappeared into the population. After decades of being in charge, it seems to me that they will still be a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Bob

[rsa]

Originally posted by Dogface
After 1930, nominal "independence" was granted, but the UK still held military bases and insisted on the exclusive right to train Iraqi military--essentially making them a satellite of the British army...

Perhaps the Iraqis are afraid of history repeating itself. Kind of like the noises we are making now about having a "footprint" in Iraq.

U.S. wants bases in Iraq

[Early Out]

Originally posted by kniz
Actually, Collounsbury says that Iran is presently in better shape than any other country in the region. They have been under an Islamic republic since the late '80s and the seeds of democracy have grown there.

While that may be true, I was thinking not about what might be best for the people of Iraq, but rather, about the U.S. government's motivations for the war. I think the administration is thinking that it can somehow finagle the installation of a democratically-elected Iraqi government that will be pro-Western and not anti-Israel (at least not virulently so).

An Islamic republic might work out reasonably well for the people of Iraq, but it wouldn't be likely to be pro-Western and/or pro-Isreal, so it's hardly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., had in mind. Therein lies the irony.

[Ned]

Because those are different people?

They were have to be, the ones cheering all seem to be the same guy

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/ca.../cartoon3.html

[Ned]

I hate not being able to edit

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by kniz
Actually, Collounsbury says that Iran is presently in better shape than any other country in the region. They have been under an Islamic republic since the late '80s and the seeds of democracy have grown there. Now the majority of the people are too young to remember the Shah of Iran or about taking American hostages. They are getting tired to the Ayatollahs methods of ruling and change is in the air. The lesson is that they did it themselves and free from any of our help. We do not need to force democracy on Iraq, because it will either fail or have to be supported by us (which is the same as failure).

Also the Kuwaitis do not know how to do anything, since they are paid by the state and all work is done by workers from other countries.

Well, let me clarify.

I feel that Iran has some healthier grass-roots civil society development than just about any other country, including grass-roots development of real democratic habits.

Better shape than any other country is abit too broad a statement.