—Look at Germany and Japan and the postwar experience there.—
There are plenty of other more modern, and much more relevant (due to the type and development level of the nation), examples of U.S. attempts at “nation building” that came out quite differently.
And, unlike Japan and Germany, in Iraq we had a long history fighting against Britian for dominance over the country for our oil companies. As people here are rarely if ever informed by our “liberal” media, that’s what led to the revolution that brought the Ba’ahists into power in the first place. So it’s rather ironic that its pretty much only the Americans and British that are coming back to liberate everyone this time around: from the Iraqi point of view, the old colonial powers that the Iraqi’s threw off in favor of a dictator are now overthrowing the dictator and taking back what they originally stole first: which is certainly better than the dictator proved to be, but not exactly a reason to be happy about their new rulers either.
And whaever happened to the whole WMD rationale and all the blustering about international law and so forth? Why is the U.S. now saying “hey, we did all this, now the spoils are ours to divvy up among our favorite domestic firms, the country our to rebuild as we see fit.”
Hmmm, who would the Iraqis prefer? A brutal dictator who built their country into near first world status - with major gains in education, welfare and the economy? Or the country that destroyed that and kept them from rebuilding for twelve years? The country that helped put Hussein in power in the first place and who supported him for a very long time? The country that has supported and continued to support brutal dictatorships in the region so long as they did what the US said?
Sorry, but the Iraqis have no reason to trust the US right now. It’s up to the US to earn that trust. Unfortunately, with the ignorant nitwits in office right now, I seriously doubt that will happen and the region will only be made worse because too many people in the country and in the administration don’t understand a goddam thing.
John, what you don’t seem to be getting clear is that the Iraqis don’t have any reason to trust the USA, period, irrespective of whether or not they trust Saddam. And as the old saying goes, he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s THEIR son of a bitch.
Whether you like it or not, they are not going to trust the United States to make Iraq a democratic or free country. you’re presenting this as a false dillemma, a classic logical error; “they either have to trust us or Saddam.” Well, guess what, dude? They can distrust BOTH if they want, and that’s what they’re gonna do. And with good reason. The USA would be better off if Iraq was a dictatorship under the thumb of a dictator who was friends of the USA, than leaving its governance up to the democratic will of the Iraqi people, who might just elect someone else hostile to what the USA wants. Check out what the USA did to elected governments in Chile and Nicaragua when they didn’t toe the American line.
They might very well be if the Bush administration isn’t extremely cautious in what they do. Who’s to say the administration won’t install a friendly dictatorship like the Saudis? Or a semi-authoritarian state like in Egypt that gives only lip-service to actual democracy? Or submerge the Mid-East in a boiling cauldron of civil strife and violence because of their incompetence?
If you don’t think these are likely scenarios, then you haven’t been paying attention to the world around you and haven’t looked at US history in the Middle East, Latin America or Asia.
What reason do the Iraqis have to believe that life under US rule will be any better? What possible reason do they have to trust until we prove to them that we are worthy of that trust? Answer, there is none.
Err… That’s a lover-ly little false dichotomy you’ve got going on there. I’ve been seing a lot of those lately.
There is the distinct possibility that the Iraqis will trust neither Saddam nor Bush. (In point of fact, this seems to be the majority Arab opinion, as much as anyone can measure.) Did you also think China had to trust either the Americans or the Soviets, that there was no other possibility? If I sat before you a Ford salesman and a GM salesman, I would consider you wise not to trust one just because you distrusted the other.
—But the fact of the matter is that the Iraqis have only 2 choices at this point. They can trust the US or they can trust Saddam Hussein.—
False dilemna. They might well not trust either, which would be a problem. That is what this thread is about.
It’s not like the U.S. is an unknown factor in Iraq. We and the UK have been a force in their country since the start of the century. And frankly, we come off rather badly in that history: as colonist competitors who crushed the natives in our drive to obtain juicy rights for our oil companies. This didn’t build a lot of trust at the time, and it led to a revolution that tossed us and our interests out of the country. Our next major move was to help into power the bloodiest side of the Ba’ath, including Saddam himself, who we continued to support all throughout his brutal tenure until he started to finally balk under our influence. Some Iraqis thought that 1991 would be the end of him: that we would provide support to help them overthrow him themselves. They even captured a majority of Iraqi territory in the effort. But without our help, they were brutually crushed and their familes subjected to unspeakable tortures. Indeed, we had essentially leveled their country in the hopes that we could gain easy victory by them rising up against him. Now they were left with a demolished country but still the dictator whose overthorw the demolishing was supposedly justified by. We then proceeded to isolate the country, trapping them in with their dictator for 12 years as he starved them and retaliated against them.
So, tell me: where does any of that engender trust? Iraqis know that when men with guns, especially those whose policy is now to shoot civilians who appear like threats, ride by with gifts, they should cheer. Saddam did the same thing all the time. So we can’t trust either their elation for us OR for Saddam at face value: all they’ve known most of their lives is kowtowing to whoever holds power.
Why is it a false dilema? Who else is set up to run the country? Maybe I’m using “trust” a bit loosely. The way I see it, they’re going to wind up ruled by a US “imposed” gov’t or what they have right now. I suppose they could try to fight both the US and S.H., but that would seem ridiculously foolhardy. Bottomline, each Iraqi has to choose whether to ramain loyal to S.H. or defect to the US/British. I guess you could say they have to choose whom they trust the least and then go with the other, if in fact the are torn.
If you really wanted to know, you could look it up. But no, you are right. Conceivably, the US could have pushed on despite the limitations of the UN resolution, but that would have fractured the coalition and possibly turn Arab cooperation into ugliness.
Well, you may be right in that Iraq will likely wind up ruled by a US imposed (sponsored, if you prefer) gov’t, but it might be premature to assume they would choose to remain under such a government for any length of time.
This presupposes that everyone must take a side, that there is a compelling reason to stick one’s neck out at this particular moment. But hypothetically, if I were opposed to both Ba’athist control and American intervention, it would be in my best interest to sit on my hands at the moment. I should instead wait for the US to kick Saddam out (one less internal opponent), then undermine whatever follows by brewing political divisiveness and relying on persistent guerrilla tactics–particularly against what will probably referred to as the “illegal occupiers of a sovereign Arab state”. Based on the recent American reluctance to engage themselves militarily in protracted, bloody police actions, all I’d need to do is recruit enough gullible youths to do my dirty work and avoid getting myself caught for a few years, a dozen max. I’d probably just hide out in Iran or Syria to stay out of the reach of US forces. Heck, they might even fund my effort for me.
Such a scenario seems (at the very least) possible unless the postwar diplomacy is handed with supreme skill and finesse.
The present US administration claims that the current war is really sanctioned by the UNSC because they believe the resolutions of GW I are still valid. The argument is not widely accepted outside the US, but they could certainly have had the same kind of legitimacy back then as they do (or do not) have now.
Due to lack of an international coalition like the UN or NATO spearheading this war, i assume the Bush administration will try its best to obtain international approval for its actions through other routes. If an american chosen dictator is propped up, that will create alot of resentment. A government run by the Iraqis & under the guidance of the UN would create much less blowback.
The US’s reputation is at stake in this war. Because Bush went around calling this operation ‘operation Iraqi freedom’, constantly saying the Iraqis would be liberated and that the US didn’t want to colonize iraq then turned around & installed an american chosed dictator that would make our international reputation 3x worse. For our own self interests, at the very least, we’d need to not be brutal or domineering towards Iraq.
Overall i don’t see how iraq could be worse w/o hussein in power as that will promote human rights & lift the sanctions. Unless Iraq turns into a giant civil war.
—Who else is set up to run the country? Maybe I’m using “trust” a bit loosely.—
Or… wrongly?
—Bottomline, each Iraqi has to choose whether to ramain loyal to S.H. or defect to the US/British.—
No, not really. They can continue to do what they’ve been doing: kowtow to whoever has the big guns, and be highly suspicious of everyone. People don’t have to support one side or the other. These are human beings who have other lives than just helping John Mace prove an ill-phrased point.
And it would have taken you five seconds to look it up yourself. Probably less time than it took you to sit around and wait for someone else to give you the answer.
Right. Like it was so eager to get international approval for the war it is carrying out now. Frankly, I don’t think this administration cares about international approval at all. So far, it has taken a unilateral approach to the war and a unilateral approach to how things will be run afterwards.
Yes, it definitely would. Unfortunately, that isn’t the plan so far. Martial law under the rule of American “coordinators.” No UN involvement. And rule by Iraqis as long as they do what the administration wants. Blowback here we come.
Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the administration’s plan is to be domineering towards Iraq. I have no faith that a true democracy will be planted in Iraq. Much more likely, a disaster waiting to happen a la Egypt will be the order of the day. But hey, hopefully I’ll be proven wrong. I doubt it though.
(And I’ve even worked in humanitarian aid!)