Forgetting about the rights and wrongs of this war for a second. I was thinking about what happens after the US and allies win this war, as I’m positive they will.
There is going to be a lot of people who for numerous reasons (Saddam supporter, friends and family dead, nationalists who don’t want foreign control etc. ) in Iraq. Iraq is very militaristic society AFAICS and there are a hell of a lot of guns in that country.
A small number of people tied up the British Army for 30 years in NI. No matter what the British threw at them they could not stop the terrorism.
Iraq is a huge country compared to Ireland and although the motives for the troops being there are different I can still see lots of trouble down the line. US or UN troops will be caught in a cycle of violence if terrorism is used as a weapon in Iraq after this war is over. It could be very nasty and very drawn out.
Is whomever ends up having to control Iraq ready for this possibility? I fear not.
There is going to be a lot of people who for numerous reasons (Saddam supporter, friends and family dead, nationalists who don’t want foreign control etc. ) will be very unhappy with the post war situation in Iraq. Iraq is very militaristic society AFAICS and there are a hell of a lot of guns in that country.
Funny, my boss and I were just talking about this just now.
Another parallel is that, though the Nationalists in NI greeted the British army as saviours at first, that turned to enmity and violence within weeks. Reports are indicating now that, short of a some Shias in the south very few Iraqis are showering coalition forces with flowers or making them cups of tea. This makes their starting position even worse than in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, NI is tiny in terms of land area and population, the security forces speak the same language as the terrorists, had the support of more than half of the population, and had a huge military and intelligence infrastructure - and still couldn’t stop terrorism directed at them, the British government, and intra-factional conflict.
The only real way to keep the peace, as far as I can see, is to rule post-war Iraq with an iron fist, which kind of diminishes the “democracy” war cries we’re hearing from the US administration.
that change came very quickly once it became clear the real reason behind the troops on the streets. they weren’t there to protect the nationalist communities from rampaging loyalist gangs, but to protect the interests of the state against the IRA taking a stronger foothold in the communities.
I imagine it all rather depends on what the ultimate goal is here. Iraq isn’t a US state (yet!), so there aren’t constitutional implications apropos policy. Nor do external vested interests in the region have influence over UK policy (as Israel does the US), nor is not only the US economy but the world economy (the two being intrinsically combined) utterly reliant on oil from the region.
In other words, Ireland was pretty much a UK / Ireland affair, policy in relation to Iraq
I think the general idea is to turn our heads discreetly aside for a while and let the natives have their way; they know who dun wot, to whom and when – one imagines the whole thing will play as a ‘revenge of the oppressed’ scenario. At least I imagine that what the military planners want.
I think we’re questioning the extent of the anti-Saddam feeling amongst the general population at the moment but I rather anticipate this is largely due to the people having been in this position for so long and having been let down so badly by the presidents father 12 years ago. Once they’re sure it’s safe to raise their heads, we might become more optimistic about them dealing with matters themselves. I hope.
Maybe look to Serbia for examples of how the tide turns ?
Or may I suggest dividing the country into smaller ones, worked for Germany; even after the reuniting they are still against the war - and for Big Oil interests - You just know that Iraq subcountries will have Big Oil intrest. Sounds like a receipe for pease until the oil runs dry.
He said that in fighting on Sunday bombs were dropped on civilian areas, killing 10 people.
That day, two dead marines were brought to the hospital and he made this admission: “When I saw the dead Americans I cheered in my heart.”
And yet he did not support Saddam Hussein: “We don’t want Saddam, but we don’t want them [the Americans] to stay afterwards.”
Meek quoted another man, a farmer named Said Yahir, as saying that the marines had come to his house and had taken his son, his rifle and 3m dinars (£500; $800).
“This is your freedom that you’re talking about? This is my life savings,” he said.
Said Yahir himself had taken part in the uprising of 1991. He is not cheering in 2003.
[quote]
The timeline I’m talking about is just after this war when the US and allies(Don’t see then giving control to the UN) are in control and trying to set up whatever admin. they plan for. If people start hitting troops or diplomates it could get ugly fast.
The timeline I’m talking about is just after this war when the US and allies(Don’t see then giving control to the UN) are in control and trying to set up whatever admin. they plan for. If people start hitting troops or diplomates it could get ugly fast.
Another anecdotal opinion, from the dear_raed blog from Baghdad:
Also, there are thousands of Iraqi exiles pouring across the border from Jordan to fight against the coalition forces. Most of these people were exiled because of Saddam.
