# Lounsbury on Iraq & MENA: War, Politics, Economy & Related Questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2003, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259 "2003-03-26T08:44:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/261 "2003-03-30T07:26:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > > > [@](#): > > > > And time after time I keep hearing a resonant theme - and I paraphrase here - “What you need to understand is that the Arabian World doesn’t THINK like we do - they perceive things differently”. > > Arab world. Arabian usually refers to the Penininsular things. > > I dislike the phrasing for one reason, it implies differences that are deeper than what I would say exists. > > Traditional modes of understanding in the Arab world channel universal human habits differently. > > It is dangerous to assume, ipso facto, that your understanding (Western) is the same as someone from this region. The filters and habits are different. > > In reality this is true whereever one goes, but the Arab world is poorly understood in the West. > > > [@](#): > > > > Further, I would suggest that all of us here would agree that humans are humans - regardless of race, creed, or culture. And most importantly, given the same sort of circumstances and stimulii, we would all tend to react in much the same way… because that’s the way human nature works - it is, after all, rather predictable within reason. > > Indeed. > > > [@](#): > > > > (1) Many of us here in the West (and the US Administration in particular it would seem) have consistently failed to appreciate the Arabian World’s perceptions of our actions… > > > > (2) Excluding Turkey and Isreal, of the entire region, only Iran seems to be a country with a goverment which is TRULY representative of it’s people… > > Well, Iran has something approaching a real democracy, I would not say ‘truly’ representative yet, but it clearly can evolve into that. > > > [@](#): > > > > (3) Illiteracy still runs rampant throughout much of the Arabian World (which is just criminal in this day and age) > > Illiteracy in the Arab world is at the same time highly variable. Some countries have high literacy rates, but the poor populated ones, like Egypt, have not ponied up enough resources to eradicte illiteracy. > > One can also point to a suspicion of a deliberate program in some areas, e.g. under the old King in Morocco. > > > [@](#): > > > > (4) True “freedom of the press” is a rare bird indeed in the region… > > Aside from the satellite channels and relative freedom of the international newspapers, yes. For all that it has gotten better in the past decade. > > > [@](#): > > > > (5) A commitement to eradicating cronyism and black market activities in the region is almost as rare as a commitment to a true free press… > > Well, yes and no. Habits regarding business tend to run very familial and this seems an item that is hard to shake. It annoys the fuck out of me, given what I do, but something that is slow to change. > > Black market is another issue, seperate. That more or less reflects repressive state apparatus that are also to weak to achieve complete control. The state is both strong and weak. Everything – well many things – are mediated by personal relationships and very few institutions are strong. Written rules matter less than your ties, at least traditionally. Urbanization and cultural change are breaking this down, but it remains the case among people older than 40, who are the decision makers. > > This indeed is an interesting topic, I deal with this on a constant basis. An environment that is neither “here” nor “there” and causes no small degree of psychic discomfort all around. Younger people, raised inbetween two standards clearly become frustrated. > > > [@](#): > > > > (6) Human nature being what it is, if you are one of the lucky people in power who benefit from Points (1) thru (5), you would NOT willingly wish to see that cozy situation diminish in the near future… > > Change is slow. > > > [@](#): > > > > My question is this… at what point in time does a desire on the part of us collectively in the West to firstly understand, and secondly, to CONDONE how the Arabian psyche works, well… at what point does such a desire not ALSO become a tool by those who are currently in power to propagate and continue the current de facto arrangements for at least the next generation, if not the next? > > Condone? I see cultural habits that are not changeable from the outside. Again, **they are not changable from the outside** , at least not in a direct sense. You provide examples, you can impose them in wholly owned corporate setting, but cultural standards, in my experience, only achieve genuine change when driven by internal (to the society) desires. > > The history of the region is littered with examples of top down, externally driven drives to change that failed. Usually, in my opinion, setting back real change by discrediting it. The history of secularism, IMO, in this region is fraught with such. So, one has to approach this as a process, with realistic ideas about what is achievable. > > Condone is not the issue the, realism is. And let me add this is not a statement that somehow “Arabs” are incapable of change, it is my position on change in human societies period, be it Western (e.g. even in our fluid society, racism has yet to fully die out) or not. > > [quote > You see, my question above is borne out of the frustration I’m feeling here… I appreciate the old chestnut that locks are only meant to keep honest people out, and (2) that I’m quite happy to strangle my own mother but don’t YOU dare say anything bad about her - and yet, time after time I’m forced to call a spade a spade and call the Arabian World for what it is - a region rife with double standards and cronyism and nepotism and worst of all - a woeful systemic disregard for civil rights and a dreadful lack of commitment to quality education. Well, I will question your last characterizations. Rife with double standards? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Arab societies, plural, have their own standards. Some perhaps are close to be objectively double standards, others perhaps not. I can say on a personal level that people unfamiliar with the Arab world as it lives can easily take away too negative a view. E.g. women, it is easy when describing the situation, perhaps as I have done, to give too negative a sense, for it is difficult to convey the nuances, and the degree to which the emphasis on ‘human relations’ over abstract ones can soften things here. Second, in re the commitment to eduction, again, I think this is a gross overgeneralization, for the overall literacy rates are truly beaten down by a few truly poor performers (e.g. Yemen, Egypt which has regressed, Morocco due to the policies of the old King) which swamp good performers such as Jordan and the Gulf, and before sanctions, Iraq, to take a few examples I know well. In general, desire for and value of education is held highly in the Arab world. Access and quality, however, is often, even usually quite poor. > [@](#): > > Most infuriatingly, every time I hear yet another excuse as to why something which works in the Western World won’t work in the Arabian World - every time - 100% I can see the same double standards at work - albeit they’re somewhat removed by six degrees of separation - but they ARE at work. Namely, and I paraphrase here… It strikes me you have at best a naive understanding of the issues here. What works in one culture almost always needs to be changed to work somewhere else. Even in the case of Europe, just to take an example, cultural habits in re work forms and organization can vary in important manners. My old employers, wonderful Swiss Bastards (I say that with fondness) carefully studied work processes when setting up new facilities, even in different regions of Europe. You’ve posed the false presumption that somehow Western standards are cookie cutter and we’re excusing Islamo-Arab differences. I don’t wish to do that at all, what I do wish to do is to draw attention to the extreme naivete of some who’ve written about this region with the foolish unstated presumption that everyone thinks just like them. > [@](#): > > _“If you try to implement this or if you try to implement that, the existing de facto power arrangments will feel threatened and instability will occur…”_ It is more than a question of existing power arrangements, it is a question of finding ways of doing things that mesh with, can be adapted to local ways of doing business/understandings of relationships. Beating one’s head against a wall assuming everything should always be X way is pure foolishness. I am sure, for example, **China Guy** would make very similar observations about doing business, and by extension achieving cultural change / political change in his part of the world. Mutual adaptation. > [@](#): > > I perceive almost every effort made by the Arabian World to resist the influence of the West as being the calculated, manipulative efforts of the _haves_ to hold on to whatever prestige, or power, or wealth that they currently have - and the poor illiterate peasants throughout the region can go get buggered - because at the end of the day, they don’t vote, because they don’t have the right to vote. And I very much include the Imams and Muslim Clerics in this category too. They enjoy their positions of influence - they are politicians as much as they are religious leaders - and THEY would be feeling as threatened as anyone to a change in the demographic power base. The perception is exageratted. Even wildly so. First, the elites in general are fairly Westernized and I do not see them as working to consciously impede change, per se. Some portions do, some portions do not. Resistance to change comes as much from the bottom as the top, and it strikes me you are committing the Marxist error in your analysis above. > [@](#): > > Only Iran seems to be the exception. Apparently 65% of the entire population is under 25 years of age, and they are profoundly well educated - and it’s from there that the peaceful seeds of evolution are flowering. ??? I like Iran and have great hopes for it, but this picture is wildly idealized. I don’t have the time to go into a discourse about that, but you need to check this impression against some hard realities. > [@](#): > > It’s my considered opinion as a result, that of all the things which the Western World COULD do in a post war Iraq, the one area which arguably is the most long term EFFECTIVE is currently never being canvassed - namely, the systemic and concerted implementation of a program to raise Iraq’s woeful literacy rate. _ **Really?** _ Now pray tell what do you know of this, in hard statistical terms, and please do take a look at the long term evolution of that literacy rate. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/262 "2003-03-30T07:44:59Z")
Innocence Lost. It is very touching that you have such innocent faith in our own Western self-image. I get the impression from your confused first paragraph that you seem to think I am making some ‘White Man’s Burden’ argument. Nothing is farther from the truth. I am laying out certain facts – uncomfortable perhaps for those stuck in theory and in vague and unrealistic understandings of other cultures. I am also not a hierarchist, who thinks somehow ‘democracy’ is at the top of an evolutionary ladder of government. Different situations require different responses, democracy is the best system for certain conditions, others it is a pretty shitty form of government, not even arising to the bon mot about being a terrible form of government except all others. I fully see democratic institutions as possible and desirable in the Arab world, and in the developing world generally. I also have learned, through long, on the ground experience, that this fantasy common among those who have grown up with western Liberal thought, that peoples are just waiting to be free and take up liberal democracy is just that, a fantasy. A deceptive fantasy that has led people to abstract away from the reality that democracy is not waiting to spring full blown out of the head of Zeus, but if I may use my analogy again, a plant that requires certain kinds of conditions. I argued above, and you can see if you read some of the cites and links, that in the developing world traditional ideas of legitimate authority and power are not often democratic, in general they are hierarchical and authoritarian – but also often include seeds of habits that can become democratic habits. Consultation, for example. Let me be clear, I do not regard the hierarchical and authoritarian ideas as mere atavisms, throw backs, signs of myopia or stupidity – that in fact is Lib displaying his incomprehension of the realities of the world. Such structures are functional and useful in many kinds of situations, they did not grow up out of nowhere, and can be said to be useful in building a society out of fractured parts, or where insecurity reigns. Claiming that preferences for a strong leader, moderately authoritarian rule and similar things is “myopia” or “stupidity” merely reflects the myopia of the writer who has not dealt with the on the ground challenges of limited resources and fractured social institutions. They are in fact highly rational (if perhaps sometimes mistaken) responses. An examination of the history of failed democracies should be instructive on these points. Including those in the Arab world, because, yes Virginia, our American armies are not the first to claim to be bringing such at the point of a gun. > [@](#): > > It is true that there is no tradition of democracy in Iraq. But the Iraqi people need not be intellectuals or even cognizant of world affairs to appreciate the notions of democracy or to at least fight against Saddam. Intellectuals, cognizance are not the bloody issue, as I think I made clear. Rather, patriotism, nationalism, particularism and indigenous ideas what such fine little abstractions as “democracy” and “legitimate rule” actually mean. See, if one decides to confront the cognitive dissonance, one can get something of a view of how this region actually works. That means not automatically presuming your standards and guidelines for reactions are like Iraqi ones. Primo: I believe I was clear on two points: (a) popular understanding of “democracy” in the Arab world is filtered through their ideas of what constitutes ‘legitimacy’ – not yours. The idea of popular sovereignty, in the sense of the way in which Americans think of it, is fairly alien to the region. This does not indicate that Arabs are “incapable” of understanding democracy > [@](#): > > Even the naive and illiterate (literacy rates are as bad as India’s) in Iraq would understand a leader’s failure if it hits them in the stomach. And what makes you think I said Iraqis do not understand Sadaam’s failures? By the way, illiteracy rates are not bad in Iraq, although the post 1990 generation is not well-educated, Iraq has fairly widespread literacy. Programs that stemmed, drumroll, from Sadaam’s early years. More on this thought in a moment. However, apportioning the blame for the situation does not necessarily fall in the manner in which you think it should fall. For all that many Iraqis blame Sadaam for Iraq’s current state, they also, equally or more so, blame the United States. You can spare me the argument that they should not, that it is Sadaam’s fault, etc. That is what most Iraqis, from up and down the social scale, that I have spoken with, indicate. The United States gets no small portion of the blame in their mind. Further, of course, Iraqis recall with fondness the period from roughly 1960 to 1980 or even through 1990, when Sadaam, for all his brutality, built the country. And he did. One can draw direct and productive parallels to Stalin. **Eva Luna** might profitably help expand on how even today, with Stalin’s crimes well-known, more or less, many Russians still look at Stalin with respect, even those that hated him. A mixture of fear, hatred and pride always characterizes Iraqi comments (ex-the super political) on Sadaam. He’s a bastard, but he was/is **their** bastard, a guy who in many senses made Iraq out of nothing. National pride enters into people’s thoughts and reactions. Sadaam, in many respects, with the Baath party helped create the nationalism that exists in Iraq today, out of the confusion of tribes and ethnicities. An incomplete work that many fear will blow apart without someone like him. And they are right, without a strong central government, Iraq may very well blow apart. So, if you lay aside the easy and uninformed presumptions about what Iraqis **should** think according to some comfortable Western world view, then one gets a complicated picture. > [@](#): > > From my impression, a majority are struggling for essential human needs such as food, shelter and medical attention. 60% of people live on baskets from the oil-for-food program. Most citizens must be aware that Saddam continues to get rich by selling oil illegally. Aware of Sadaam getting rich? Perhaps, although again, the acceptance of some graft, of the leader taking and redistributing wealth via his networks runs deep in the Arab world. Old habits from yore that creep unconsciously into modern forms. This is nothing unique to the Arab world, the issues of patronage and the like crop up everywhere, they, in my opinion, are old and deep human habits. In the West, over a very long time indeed, we have built up institutions that channel and divert and even suppress primordial patronage instincts. Think Tammany Hall, Europeans can look to the long struggle to build the state, and in Europe it was often bloody as well. So, once again, resentments may be there, but they are also mixed with a certain legitimacy for much of the population, so long as it’s not too much. Further, again, many Iraqis strongly believe that the Western powers and companies are robbing them more than Sadaam. Given the history of colonial exploitation, histories that are lively and real in the Arab world, this is not entirely irrational. So once more, your comments hoist themselves on the problem that you presume that events are passing through **your** lens of interpretation. They are not, they pass through the local lens, which is not myopic nor stupid. It is, however, very different. > [@](#): > > The Kurds must remember the brutal treatment at Saddam’s hands which continues to this day. Woo hoo. The Kurds, the despised minority. Yes, but again, Kurdish positions are somewhat unique. Kurds want their own state and want no part of an Iraqi nation. That is not the same as the Arab populations, and indeed plays directly into Sadaam’s hands. For however much the Shiites and the Sunnis may not love and even in the former case, hate Sadaam, they are attached to the idea of an Arab state, an Arab Iraqi state. The very fact everyone knows very well the Kurds want out is a threat to their (Arab) national aspirations. You can argue it should not be and so on, but if you want to understand the drivers and what frames opinion, you had bloody better well understand the local point of view. > [@](#): > > The populace must be aware of the risks in vocally opposing the regime. Much of this awareness can be multiplied by a few factors for the large Iraqi middle-class, especially those living in urban areas. Given all this, I find it surprising that Collounsbury would think that Iraqis would vehemently resist an outsider coming in to depose Saddam. You find it surprising because you have a naïve sense that somehow the manner in which Iraqis are looking at the situation matches yours. That they trust Anglo-American assurances on the matter of bringing democracy, that they believe that the Anglo-American forces are liberators. They do not. They see Americans as potential new colonizers, who may be useful, maybe, in getting rid of Sadaam. Period. Now, if we are careful, this can be overcome, but it is a dangerous trap. I listened to the NPR link provided. Funny, I vaguely know Chris Dickey. He’s well connected in the region, and although he does not speak Arabic very well, he’s built up relationships in the region, especially outside the little Westernized elites who so often purvey such distorted views to Western reporters. I have not seen him since the start of the war, but I agree with his sentiments and his analysis, his comments on the reaction to the Iraqi expatriate community precisely match my observations. > [@](#): > > There seem to be two issues here: > (1) Removing Saddam > (2) Post-saddam situation. > > I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi people would willingly resist (1). I believe this is also what Libertarian is having issues with (?) Because both of you are naively trapped in a view that somehow Iraqis view things the way you do. They do not. And that is not “myopia” or stupidity, it is from a point of view shaped by local circumstances, histories and to be very frank, their far, far better understanding of the history of what “Liberators” coming from the West. Such naiveté bordering on gross incompetence and stupidity is what led this Administration into this fiasco. > [@](#): > > Regarding (2), the nuanced notion advanced in this thread is that creating a democratic country is not as easy as installing an Iraqi who has lived in exile in the US distributing pamphlets, and expecting the tradition to get embedded overnight. I am 100% in agreement with this. IMHO, India continues to be a democracy (with all its failures) because the tradition took root while Nehru was continuously getting elected to power eerily similar to a dictatorship. It is perfectly natural for the Iraqi people to be suspicious of the new regime, and how much US/UK/West seek to influence post-Saddam Iraq. But, why should that affect (1)? How can an Iraqi devastated under the Saddam regime pick up the strength to fight for Saddam? See above, because they do not trust the English or the Americans, and based on the \*\* empirical \*\* evidence, they are **right**. This ain’t fucking Kansas, this is a hard neighborhood, which although it has major potential has deep fissures that will take time to heal, and must be healed in a long term manner. > [@](#): > > (That seems to belie basic human survival laws. Didn’t the people in Afghanistan rejoice the Taliban’s exit?) Kaboul did, the North did. The south did not, and fighting continues. I direct readers to my predictions made that Fall regarding what would happen in Afghanistan. I note that my predictions were, to my recollection, almost 100% correct. > [@](#): > > Will Baghdad Fight to the End? > By MARK BOWDEN > [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/opinion/27BOWD.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/opinion/27BOWD.html) I wish to recommend this link – and may I add that Bowden’s book is brilliant in a manner the film is not. It brings out the Somali side of the war, and the quasi-nationalist reaction to the ham-handedness of the American military. > [@](#): > > Arab World Is Seeing War Far Differently > Media, Mistrust of U.S. Help Shape Perspective > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40075-2003Mar27.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40075-2003Mar27.html) Another good article illustrating the issues. And in regards to problems, nota bene, Afghanistan proves to be less and less clear as time goes on, despite the magical thinking of many of the uninformed have on this matter. Indeed speaking with my friends in IOM who have just come from Afghanistan, I heard nothing particularly encouraging about the areas outside of the city state of Kaboul: > [@](#): > > U.S. Lands in Middle of Afghan Feuding > Despite Stated Policy, Force Reluctantly Being Used to Subdue Local Conflicts > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39508-2003Mar27.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39508-2003Mar27.html) And finally, this article on the dangerous situation where Anglo-American forces are seen as occupiers, not liberators, even if they are ridding people of the hated Sadaam: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44665-2003Mar28.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44665-2003Mar28.html) > [@](#): > > Villagers in Mushirij gathered today outside the command post of the Fusiliers’ Zulu Company, complaining loudly that while the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, dubbed “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” promised them a better life, after just one week they have seen only heightened insecurity. > The main problem, many complained, is that while the British troops patrolling here confiscate weapons from ordinary villagers, the thieves – many of them deserters from President Saddam Hussein’s 51st Mechanized Division that was based here – roam outside the control of any authority, preying on villagers. > > “The Americans occupied us. They said they would protect us,” said a 47-year-old Iraqi man, an engineer in bluejeans and black sandals with a moustache streaked with gray. “But the thieves come and steal from our companies. How can we restart our companies?” > > “We are afraid from both sides,” said the man, who asked that his name not be published. “We are afraid of the thieves, and we are afraid of them,” he said, pointing at the British troops garrisoned in what was the headquarters of the ruling Baath Party. “The thieves have guns, but we have no guns.” > > He added, ominously, “If this continues, in seven days or more, we will fight them,” he said, referring to the British soldiers. “We have no guns, but we can get guns. If this place is still without water, still without electricity, we will fight them. Even this child,” he said, patting the head of an 8-year-old who was listening intently in the crowd. > “He can fight,” the engineer said of the child. “He is an Iraqi.” Some of this is posing. Some is not. It reflects a situation far different than that which the Neo-Con clique that sold this war thought existed. Far, far different. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/263 "2003-03-30T07:49:48Z")
**Calculus of Logic** > [@](#): > > I have some questions Collounsbury. Keep in mind that I am an american hawk so what I say is biased. Please try not to respond abusively but to give honest, informed answer as I have wondered about these things for a while and hope someone like you who lives in a mid east community can offer me some insight. Very well, but I am not going to be kind either. People need to lose their illusions. > [@](#): > > Do Arabs openly debate or consider what I perceive to be double standards? Egypt has unilaterally (without international or UN approval) attacked Israel 6 times in 60 years while the first war on Iraq carried out by the US was UN sanctioned, and the second is up to debate on whether it has UN approval. Is the validity of claims of condemning opposition to unilateral aggression ever questioned when Egypt is more unilaterally aggressive towards Israel than the US is towards Iraq? Isn’t supporting the unilateral attacks on Israel seen as a double standard when they condemn the unilateral attack by the US on Iraq? No, for they do not seem the issue in the terms you have framed this in. In the Arab view, Israel started this, the Arabs were engaged in a long term war. They would certainly dispute, sometimes with more factual support, sometimes with less, your characterization of the nature of the attacks (in fact I may add that Israel has engaged in ‘pre-emptive’ war etc. > [@](#): > > In 1991 Saddam’s regime bombed suburban enclaves in Tel Aviv. Just today the Regime bombed a shopping mall in Kuwait. Does the intentional bombing of civilian targets (especially the latter since Kuwait is an Islamic country) by Iraq receive as much condemnation as US accidental bombing of civilian enclaves? does the intentional use of civilians as human shields by pockets of the Iraq resistance receive the same condemnation as accidental targeting of them by the coalition. On Israel, the general sense is one that Israel conducts total war on the Palestinians, such that there is no reason for Arabs to tie one hand behind their backs. However discussable, that is the view. In regards to Kuwait: Shall we not refrain from lapping up propaganda? Primo, Kuwaiti reports themselves indicate it was an **American** missile gone astray. Looking around I found this NY Times article which repeats the same comments I saw on Arab TV: [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29KUWA.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29KUWA.html) It hardly is likely that Iraq is deliberately targeting anything. They’re firing barely guided rockets with little ability to aim them. Second, of course, in terms of a lack of outrage the Kuwaitis are little loved in the region, period. One has but to see Arab films depicting real horrors inflicted by Kuwaitis on Arab guest workers, and the outrageous lies the Kuwaitis told in exaggerating real Iraqi military atrocities still rankles, above all as it was more the guest worker population that suffered than the Kuwaiti fat cats, guest workers who were expelled later for having the ‘wrong’ nationality. In regards to human shields: again you assert as fact something which is unclear (I believe it is probably in part correct, but as likely to something that is being exaggerated as part of our own agitprop campaign). Insofar as there is almost **zero** credibility for US claims in this part of the world, fairly or unfairly, almost no Arabs believe our assertions. Regardless, the answer is no. You can regard it as hypocrisy, but there is so much hypocrisy to go around that I believe the real point here is that in general Arab audiences have good reasons to discount American claims, in addition to the bad habit here to see everything in terms of plots and conspiracies. It takes time to unwind generations of poor information flow. > [@](#): > > I ask because over here there is open talk about the double standards (If the US shows POWs that is ok, if Iraq shows POWs that is a crime. How we supported Saddam once now oppose him, How we support tyrants in some Arab countries, but now use the removal of a tyrant as a reason to topple Saddam, etc.), and I wonder if there is debate where you are on double standards like the ones I listed. Are they dismissed or not brought up because they are fighting what they feel is an evil occupying force that they can’t win against with regular tactics? Do people even consider them? Yes, there is much talk of double standards, and as usual people are more sensitive to others double standards than to their own. > [@](#): > > Is mid east hatred of the US due to the bias against outsiders (imperialistic, secular, non tribal, non muslim Americans) whose army they can’t fight against, which would make them feel impotent and unable to resist against? Is that not a bit of any empty question? I think I have described the roots of Middle Eastern resentment here, there are many threads to this. Imperialism, sense of humiliation. Listen to Dickey’s interview. It is good. I agree with Dickey on almost all points. Listen to the whole thing carefully, he is giving an excellent reportage on local views at the least. > [@](#): > > Is the same feeling pervasive in the middle east, i.e., a feeling of having no ability to defend yourself against the US and being helpless, and this leads to intense bias & dislike? I’d assume it would be a major factor because I keep hearing again & again if Saddam can prove he can stand up to the US he will be a hero. Precisely, which again has been my point all along. Those who have been pimping this idea of a democratic transformation, a positive domino effect, from this war had and have **NO** understanding of the socio-political dynamics here. > [@](#): > > Reading your posts I realize you’ve pretty much said the same things I’m saying about mid east hatred, but can you expound on the topic and what, if anything, the US can do to lessen it. What about the US’s attempts to find a Palestinian-Israeli peace, does that have any good effects? Well, the Palestinian issue **must** be addressed in an aggressive manner, and however much Israeli opinion may or may not like this, if we are to repair the larger issues, the West Bank settlements have to go. I have noted many times in the past, the Palestinians are positively obsessed by land. Indeed inheritance issues in the classic Arab world are even fraught with extreme conflict within families—so the idea I heard from an Israeli official that the Palestinians “will just have to” give up parts of the West Bank in my mind is a non-starter. Getting them to let go of the pre-1967 lands is the biggest step, but in my read, just about 100% of the population is willing to keep on fighting and dying for their last little scraps of land in the West Bank. Given the scanty benefits that come from getting a few more hectares (ex-ideological ones) for the Israelis, this is a small sacrifice on their part. Now, of course this has to come with security guarantees, but even there it has to go both ways. I believe any neutral outsider could see that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians were working entirely in good faith up to 2000, and I lay a great deal of blame on the Netanyahu government for poisoning the atmosphere. It’s hard to regain lost trust, very hard. Of course this is a two way street, but clearly realistic goals need to be set and acted upon **soon**. The Bush plan that sets goals for 2005 is nothing but a disaster which will breed longer term resentment. Action needs to be soon and visible. > [@](#): > > As far as the US being liberators, nobody I know here in the US thinks that is the real reason for invading Iraq. I’m sure the Iraqi people will be better off without Saddam, but even I & my friends know that if that were the true reason then things would be much different in our foreign policy. So why, as it seems you are saying, do people in the arab world take such claims of being liberators personally instead of just dismissing them out of hand? Your question literally makes no sense. No Arab believes that the claim the US is there to liberate Iraq is true. The open hypocrisy of such claims are part of the problem, for the very lie reinforces the idea that the Americans (a) are not to be trusted (b) there to impose colonial rule for their benefit and for the benefit of Israel, and to the detriment of the Arabs and what little self-respect and power they have. > [@](#): > > I see no reason to put US or UK soldiers at risk of dying because I think double standards against the US will find a way to taint anything beneficial. How would such an act have any long term beneficial effect that would persist in the face of feelings of hatred for the imperialist, overpowering, Israel supporting outsiders? Wouldn’t the feelings of empathy for the US who put their troops at risk just be dismissed in a few months? The US & UK initiated no fly zone has enabled the Kurds and Shiites to live in more safety than they could obtain without it, the kurds no longer have to live in fear of a gas attack and have been able to obtain a degree of political autonomy but from what I can see this is not even a consideration for being pro-US, so why would American & UK blood being spilt be any different? Read the bloody arguments to date and do so more reflecting. First, the beneficial effect is to at least have some fig leaf of respectability and thiqa in the region. It does no good to lose 100% of the Arabs, some small percentage do support the US, to turn them against us, and deepen dislike to real hatred makes things worse, not better. The same with our now tattered global reputation, the more we do to reinforce the idea that we are sparing our soldiers at the expense of Iraqi non-combatants, the more this war feeds a rising anti-Americanism and the more there will be negative consequences, including terrorism and lost lives. In short, sparing soldiers’ lives now at the expense of Iraqi civilians is deferring more violence and loss of life into the future, in perhaps less defendable circumstances. Second, in terms of the post-war, the more believable our claims to have done our utmost in avoiding civilian deaths, the better in terms of stability and avoidance of a post-Sadaam insurrection against the occupation. In my mind, this is a serious risk – all the more so for the fact that after Sadaam’s fall you are likely to see celebrations and the like among the groups that opposed him, which is just as likely to lead the usual suspects in the West to jump to the conclusion that Western forces are being welcomed. Third, in terms of anti-Americanism in Iraq, which is running high, it will be helpful to avoid generating further hatreds, mere dislike is manageable, hatred and the consideration of some clans that they have blood feuds with Americans for the deaths of their people will generate “post-War” incidents, resistance and guerrilla warfare (I am sure we will label it “terrorism” which will sell in the States but few other places). Everyone with a dead relative may be a potential resistance fighter, there is no need to generate more. Fourth, in the near term the more death and destruction that is visited upon the civilians, the more Sadaam or at least the resistance to the invasion gets supporters and volunteers, thus again getting into a negative cycle. The overwhelming superiority of American forces is well-known. The Administration harped upon this for months, and set up a set of expectations that perhaps are not achievable. However much comfortable Americans sitting at home shrug off the collateral damage as something that happens, it is clearly enraging people who see it possibly happening to themselves, and who have an almost Hollywoodesque vision of how American forces can fight ‘cleanly’ with our fancy gear, etc. Because of this, the expectation globally is that the US has an obligation to spare civilians, and if somehow we do not, then obviously it is because we don’t care. This is not to make an argument that we should not fight wisely or that I desire to see high casualties on the American side, but only to reiterate that having framed the war in the manner we did, and with existing low credibility on a global basis, there is a strong political imperative to fight it in a certain way. And this is right and proper, we fight wars to achieve \*\* political goals \*\*, military achievements in this day and age are only worth the political results they achieve. There are poisonous conclusions that will find fertile grounds to breed radicalism and in general increase insecurity. Now something of a personal aside. This past Saturday my housekeeper came to my door in tears. An Iraqi and a Shiite, I’ve long known she was bitterly opposed to an American intervention. We have conversed on that, in family and individually. Now with Basra, from whence her husband comes, surrounded and her own village / city about to be invaded, she was unbelievably upset. I sat through, contrary to my habit, a good hour lecture from her on the subject of the invasion. It adds little to what I have written here, other than perhaps a personal angle. Among the points which strike me as important to understand is the degree of deep-seated resentment someone like this, with few if any reasons to love the regime, has towards the Anglo-American invasion. She literally was wishing death upon the “Coalition” soldiers. But most importantly the bitterness which the seizure of Iraqi assets to pay for reconstruction engendered. Symbolic of this Administration’s apparent complete tone-deafness, quite clearly these measures, in combination with statements that Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction are feeding a sense among the Iraqis that they are being asked to pay for the very destruction they feel the Americans are visiting upon them in their name, but without their approval. It strikes me that once more my comments were spot on: among the requisite acts the USA has to take post-war is not to seem like a cheap-ass bully willing to break the furniture but unwilling to pay for it. This will only reinforce resentments, and breed resentment among those who do not already resent us. To be clear, the world is not black and white, and neither are resentments and dislike all of a piece – some are superficial and can be allayed with good will and even better, good actions. Others can not. Our present communications policy is driving us deeper and deeper in to the blackest realms of resentment, towards hatred. I am well aware that no small number of Americans and perhaps others may respond that “they” already hate “us” – simplistic crap. Certainly some Muslims and Arabs (including Christians mind you) do indeed hate “us” – although this is often Western governmental policies more than Westerners per se. It is rather more accurate to say of the majority that many resent rather than hate the West, for what they view as the injustices visited upon them by what can be fairly termed often hypocritical policies of preaching democracy but supporting repressive regimes when they play ball with us. Bitterness and resentment, however, are things which can be turned around, or they can deepen into hatred. In my considered opinion a policy both protecting American interests and working intelligently to assuage ‘middle ground opinion’ such that resentment does not descend into hatred is eminently possible. A real Israel-Palestinian policy vigorously pursued and with some view to balance, a program in Iraq that does not aim to create an “Egypt on the Euphrates” but a truly viable Iraqi entity along the lines of my prior comments. Further, a real financial commitment by the world’s richest economy to assisting Iraq, without also engaging in petty, juvenile reprisals against those nations companies that thought this war is a grave error, would go a long way to assisting in this. This in addition sticking to a war plan that has tried to minimize as much as possible Iraqi non-combatant losses. We do not want to engage in Russian behaviour, and end up with Grozny and Tchetchenia. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/264 "2003-03-30T07:54:20Z")
**Gunspot** I believe you’ve rather missed the point to date. > [@](#): > > 1. We should have stayed out of the middle East altogether because they don’t want us there. No matter how many atrocities there leader commits. No, not at all, my argument has been the manner of execution matters, and the mere fact a leader has committed atrocities obviously is not a sufficient condition, as we have happily supported such in the past, and indeed presently. The stink of hypocrisy should not be quite so obvious and strong if one wants to have a successful foreign policy. > [@](#): > > 1. Should we have done this all across the board? Is that not isolationism? Frankly the question does not make any sense. Perhaps you meant unilateralism, which more or less describes the policy to date. > [@](#): > > 1. They can stand HS as long as needed because of their culture, or just wait until he died and this would have been the more correct way to handle things? However, in the absence of a solid international coalition with backing from the UN and/or some clear and substantial support from ‘first tier nations’ ex-the UK, which clearly does not obtain today, containment would have been the preferable option until a good case for war or some alternative muscular solution was mustered. Otherwise we end up with the pious nonsense and clear hypocrisy of the current argument. > [@](#): > > 1. Now that we are there, there is no way to get out without total disaster? No, I clearly did not say that. I have laid out a number of policies and options, while clearly warning it is very easy to fuck this thing up even more than it is already fucked up. The Administration, and uninformed American public little prepared to understand the issues involved, has gotten itself into something of a corner, and unnecessarily so. > [@](#): > > 1. Seems as the world is going to condemn the US and it will be open season on us. Much of the world condemns the present Bush Administration’s policies at present and the present war has provoked real anger against the US. This was entirely unnecessary as but a modicum of more skill in execution (such as was done in re Afghanistan or better by James Baker with our first Gulf War). > [@](#): > > 1. There is really no one person or group of persons who will be suitable to the average Iraq citizen, as if there is one. The ‘tribes’ mentality deems that a impossibility. They want and need a SH because that is all they understand and need. That is a complete misreading of my comments to date. What I indicated is (a) Iraq is a fractured state that is not quite yet a nation in the sense of a unitary national identity (b) the competition between groups is not bounded by common sets of mutually accepted rules © No one groups accepts the idea of the dominance of another, nor particularly sharing the pie (d) there is no small support for a strong national leader per historical traditions, and no historical experience with anything like democracy. It is not a matter of the pejorative “all they need and understand” it is a matter of historical and cultural expectations being radically different than yours. > [@](#): > > 1. Since this has started and can not be undone, what choice does the US have that will not result in it’s own destruction? I am hearing most here say there is nothing to be done now as it can not be done from where we are. Nothing in this war will result in the destruction of the USA, anyone who claims such is a yammering fool. Such claims by anti-war people are every bit as bad as the overselling of the war itself. However, a real Pandora’s Box has been opened by a bunch of clowns who did not think through the issues very carefully. I have made clear I do see ways out, but they require no small degree of skill to hedge ongoing damage to American interests in the short and medium terms. I will not bother to repeat what should be clear enough already. > [@](#): > > 1. Can the world really wait 10 -100 years for the Mid-East to grow to be capable of participating on a world level? Or do we just have to turn a blind eye to what they do becausde they are different? Ignoring the pejorative phrasing, there is no matter of ‘waiting’ for the Middle East, North Africa or any other part of the developing world to become like us (the clear meaning I would suppose of ‘world level’). Rather it is a matter of proper policies, looking to both American interests (security and economic wise) and local views for a long term program. Very well comrades. It took me rather too long to run through this. I shall have to neglect this thread for a bit. I hope I have addressed enough points to be useful. I would ask that to the extent it is interesting that we keep this thread going, although I shall have to scale back my replies. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/265 "2003-03-30T07:57:59Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* [quote] Read the bloody arguments to date and do so more reflecting. [quote] My apologies, this was in the first draft and I thought I edited it out, but the multipart posting fooled me. That was unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/266 "2003-03-30T07:59:05Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* \*\* [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* [quote] Read the bloody arguments to date and do so more reflecting. > [@](#): > > My apologies, this was in the first draft and I thought I edited it out, but the multipart posting fooled me. That was unnecessary. \*\* And I can’t code for shit either. I am a big dodo. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/267 "2003-03-30T08:03:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > > **Collounsbury** , after giving it some thought, your idea of using Palestinians to administer some high-profile area of Iraqi reconstruction is drop-dead excellent because it works on so many levels. It will assauge Iraqi feeling and at the same time, its a twofer with respect to the rest of the Arab world. It sends a message that the U.S. is not trying to colonize Iraq and, at the same time, provides a huge symbolic boost vis a vis America’s relations with the Palestinians. With a bit of luck, Sharon will publically complain about it! Let me confess that for all my briliance (this line for my “fans” who like to psychoanalyze me) this came from a brainstorming session here and I do not believe I was the originator. Some of the people involved are well enough placed to pass the idea along, if the Bush Admin, should they decide to listen to expert advice from State. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/268 "2003-03-30T08:23:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Azael \* > (Please excuse my ramblings, I’m trying to think this through and will welcome constructive criticism.) We begin well, but I disagree with your conclusions. > [@](#): > > We have no hope of winning the propaganda war when we are seen as outsiders. What we must do is make the propaganda irrelevant. If the perceptions are to blame then our only recourse can be to positively impact their physical reality in such a way that it cannot be ignored. Well, let me note that our communication strategy has to begin to speak to Arab modes of communication, and rhetorical styles, rather than our own. Our military officers… well they are not well versed in speaking in ways that are not terribly blunt and Western. Arab rhetoric abhors bluntness, when one is trying to be polite. Clearly, in my mind, we desperately need to begin to communicate **with** the Arab world in its own style, not shouting at them. Rumsfeld is a clear example of a rhetorical style that I know many Americans love, but grates on foreigners nerves, esp. in this region. > [@](#): > > It speaks of people who blame the West for propping up the corrupt and leaving the common Muslim living in fear and poverty. And Christian. > [@](#): > > It’s easier to blame the West; I would hazard a guess that it is much safer than blaming the local government as well. It helps of course that the West has historically come as Crusaders, Imperialists or fat-cat capitalists. It helps that the Middle East is filled with absolutist regimes cobbled together by the West as bulwarks against radical socialism. And one must not forget the West’s gift to the Palestinians, Israel, a gift paid for with American money and military technology. With Israel the Western democracies have come as colonizers, invaders and infidels. A very fair assessment of the local view, which while itself not wholly fair to the West must be dealt with (and does indeed contain large kernels of truth). > [@](#): > > What do we do? Disengage? Pretend that we don’t have a vital stake in future of the Middle East? Well, I think I have argued consistently that a policy responsive to the local situation and communicted in a manner that speaks to them (not to **ourselves** in the naive assumption everyone just a little American waiting to get out) would be terribly helpful. > [@](#): > > Iraq presents a different problem; Iraq could have easily set the precedent that would have made UN disarmament programs useless. The sanctions regime presented an untenable situation, a standoff between the West and Saddam that only victimized those who had no direct say in the actions of their government. Like a pressure cooker popular discontent kept building and building, a fertile ground for terrorism. I’m not trying to justify the war here, but I am willing to recognize the rationale that holds it preferable to the status quo. Well the terrorism part makes no sense given Iraqis do not play a large role as of yet in the al-Qaeda type networks. Pressure cooker, likely, but in many senses. > [@](#): > > I am a firm believer that democracy is a natural pressure valve on popular discontent, it helps to ensure that the uses of official violence are legitimate. It allows the people to react non-violently and effectively to the misuse of official power. Belief is nice. However the problem which poses, which I have been hammering at, is that assuming democratic institutions and norms will drop nicely into place, in situations where ideas about legitimacy and authority, and even the rules of the political game in terms of accomodating the loser and the outgroup are fundamentally different, well that to my mind and to my experience is dangerously naive. > [@](#): > > What I am being told here is that this solution to the simmering extremism that pervades the region is unrealistic. Successful democracies are not made overnight; we can’t just toss them the instructions manual and have them set it up themselves. Or perhaps we can, as in Iran, but in the case of Iran it was necessary first to reject the manipulations of the West before the people could be disillusioned by oppressive radical Islamic theocracies and see the benefits of more open societies. Waiting for Islamic extremism to run its course is not an option likely to make many Americans feel comfortable. Instead we have chosen to use our power to provide stability; let’s hope we can. Hopefully that will give us a chance to make those benefits clear. _Hopefully._ I rather hate to have policies based on such, but for those going to reconstruct, at least they have flack jackets. > [@](#): > > The lifting of the sanctions regime will be an immediate benefit, investment in the traditional industries of a growing economy will bring jobs and higher living standards to the Iraqi people. It’s hard to be disaffected with the government when you are relatively well off; when you suddenly you have something to lose. Saddam has been stealing the bread from the mouths of his own people in order to further a military agenda, a military agenda that the US had no reason to trust. So if democracy is unrealistic then the very real benefits of a post-Saddam Iraq most certainly are not. That is how we can build trust, by showing that we haven’t come to steal the resources of the Iraqi but instead intend to make them rich by paying for them. Perhaps democracies are premature, but if whatever is left in Iraq is merely a repeat of the same brute violence and repression then we will have failed. We must work to show the very clear benefits of a government that is beholden to the rights of the people above all, obviously not a concept familiar to those living under absolute dictatorships. Yes, this is a hope, and it can be done, if done right. However, it can easily be done wrong, with an Iraq torn apart by desultory warfare and the like. Finally on the benefits of a free society, I am not at all sure they are so apparent. The visions here of what Western society is are… fun house mirror visions. People like and dislike them. Freedom is desired in some areas, feared and disliked in others (e.g. the family, and social relations). No, they are not “too apparent” for they arenot all that apparent per se. Baywatch society is apprarent, but is it “free”? I believe you are largely correct, but I wish to warn against having an exageratted idea of ‘free society’ in Iran or even the degree to which local understandings match what you might consider to be ‘free society.’ A process, I do not wish to be negative, I wish to caution against too idealized pictures. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/269 "2003-03-30T08:34:54Z")
Thanks for your responses to my post **Collounsbury**. Much appreciated. I feel for you in some respects, in so far as this thread must make you feel as though you’re having a Question and Answer session with the entire world, and more than just a little bit of it wants to argue with you while you’re at it. In my own defence, please note that I made a supreme effort to innately appreciate the individual stimulii and cultural influences which are at work in each country in the region, and in some instances, which are ALSO at work within each ethnic group within some of those countries. Which is why my post related more to the issues of literacy, cronyism, nepotism and de facto power arrangements rather than concentrating on the more obvious targets of “tribalism etc”. With your blessing, I’ll wait until you’re ready for further inter-active posting again before continuing with my theories on “literacy rates and quality education” directly influencing a given society’s ability to be manipulated… I watched your posts come in over the last 3 hours and it’s obvious that they take a long time to write - given their quality and the enormous breadth of topics involved. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/270 "2003-03-30T08:40:11Z")
Please let me say that argument is good. If my argument is not convincing, then challenge it. As I noted, I’m a bit short tempered to begin with, and in writing quickly I sometimes forge to polish off the edges. E.g. in re calculus, I thought I had removed a snarky comment in a long ass reply. In any case, I also understand it is very difficult in a brief message to encapsulate the detials and vareity. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/271 "2003-03-30T08:48:26Z")
**Collunsbury** , thanks very much for this thread. I understand your time is critically valuable right now, and appreciate that you’ve put as much time and thought into this as you have. I’m curious as to your take on Rumsfeld’s warnings to Syria and Iran. How will they be perceived in the region, and particularly by those two nations? What chace do you see of other nations getting involved in this war? Or, more specifically, how long do you think the war can go on before another nation gets involved? Also, given the long history of animosity between Kurds and Iraqis, is our support of the Kurds in this conflict making it even less likely that the Iraqis will see us favorably? ---
**Author:** ![McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19adc/32.png) [@McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/272 "2003-03-30T08:55:02Z")
This was posted by somebody I know on another board. It’s taken as a straight copy/paste. He was responding to someone named “foodbiz”, but it could just as easilly apply to anyone who thinks this war is an outrage. > [@](#): > > (quoted from: Human Rights Dossier on Iraq): > > Saddam Hussein’s Regime’s Methods of Torture > > The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture or their families. > > **Eye gouging:** Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye sockets stuffed with paper. > > **Piercing of hands with electric drill:** A common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim who then had acid poured into his open wounds. > > **Suspension from the ceiling:** Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours by their wrists, often with their hands tied behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments. > > **Electric shock:** A common torture method. Shocks are applied to various parts of the body, including the genitals, ears, tongue and fingers. > > **Sexual abuse:** Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken bottles being forced into the victim’s anus. > > **"Falaqa":** Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often losing consciousness. > Other physical torture Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common. > Mock executions Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged. Victims are hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank rounds. > > Acid baths David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. Victims were hung by their wrists and gradually lowered into the acid. > Plus let’s not forget the many unrelated, but corroborating eye-witness accounts of the human shredding machine. A large industrial shredding unit intended for use in grinding large amounts of hard plastic materials into a more recyclable form. Saddam has one of these industrial shredders, but he doesn’t use it for plastic. According to some of the witnesses, if the executioners took pity on the victim, then the victim might be lucky enough to be dropped into the shredder head first. But if they really didn’t like you, then you go in feet first. This is such a horrific, nightmarish image that many people just choose not to believe it. But the accounts are from eye-witness sources. Sources that are unrelated and unbeknownst to each other. And the stories corroborate. So like it or not, believe it or not, it’s true. These practices do go on. > > And what you NEED to understand is these types of torture incidents are NOT isolated and rare cases. **This is routine under Saddam’s rule!** This is how he controls the population, through FEAR. If you know anything about Saddam’s history then you know this \*\*is true. \*\* > > Saddam started his fear campaign on day ONE of his rule by gathering all the government officials in the country and executing about a third of them. The ones that were left alive were certainly never going to betray Saddam after what they just witnessed. BTW, this is a well documented fact. This is not fantasy. This is not over-exaggerated media hype. This is simply what happened. There’s even film of the event. I’m sure you’re aware of this ugly day in Iraq’s history, but just in case you’re not, let me add a little description so you are clear on what happened that day. It’s not like he just rounded up the 1,000 or so government mucky-mucks and then snapped his fingers and had a third of them executed. That wouldn’t have been torturous enough or instilled enough fear in the survivors. What did happen was all these mucky-mucks were assembled in a large auditorium. Saddam sat up on stage all by himself, sitting in a simple wooden chair with a basic table in front of him. He was relaxed looking (kinda slouched down against the back of the chair). He was nonchalantly smoking a stogie and calmly spouting rhetoric about how his new rule was going to be. The portion of his captive audience that were to be executed that day were not summoned all at once. Instead he called them each by name, individually. At which time they were escorted from the theater and shot (or imprisoned to be tortured and executed later). This finger pointing of his victims, one by one, went on for a grueling 12+ hours. They say the ones that were shot that day were the lucky ones. > > Now, here’s where I ask **you** to think, foodbiz (and other assorted “peace” types). I expounded on this one event not just because it’s well documented case of Saddam’s cold, calculated, inhumane ways…but because this was Saddam’s **first day in power.** That’s how he set the bar. That’s how he demonstrated how it was going to be in Iraq from then on. Do you think that maybe this was just a “bad day” under Saddam’s rule and since then it’s been much better? Do you think his cold, calculated methods of controlling anyone under him through unbelievably inhumane torture practices or murder have stopped? > > AFAIC, anyone that says we should “give Saddam more time” or who thinks we shouldn’t be invading a sovereign country to oust an evil man like Saddam…well, all I can say is, “How can you sleep at night?” Shame on you. > > Almost ironically I’m also a big supporter of peace. I love peace. But, do you want to know something that is more important than peace? (Newsflash: There **are** things more vitally important than peace itself.) HUMAN RIGHTS! The right NOT to be tortured. The right NOT to be murdered. The right NOT to be forced to live in fear by an organized government practice of torture/murder of it’s citizens. And I know Saddam’s not alone in his evilness. There are plenty of other horrible places in the world and plenty of other evil men that bring suffering, pain, and fear to thousands of people on our planet. But the clock is ticking for them. I’m confident their day will come as well…but today is Saddam’s day. How can anybody who knows what happens/happned in Iraq under Saddam’s rule think that it’s better to let it CONTINUE to happen than possibly risk inflaming public opinion afterwards? How can you possibly feel a carefully planned war targeting the leadership and executed to minimize vicilian casualities at the risk of our own soldiers’ lives in order to liberate these people from this hell is the greater of two evils? ---
**Author:** ![McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19adc/32.png) [@McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/273 "2003-03-30T08:57:19Z")
I forgot, the cite for the above is [Human Rights Dossier on Iraq](http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf) It’s a pdf. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/274 "2003-03-30T08:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by McMurphy \* > How can anybody who knows what happens/happned in Iraq under Saddam’s rule think that it’s better to let it CONTINUE to happen than possibly risk inflaming public opinion afterwards? How can you possibly feel a carefully planned war targeting the leadership and executed to minimize vicilian casualities at the risk of our own soldiers’ lives in order to liberate these people from this hell is the greater of two evils? May I suggest you read the thread in its entirety, rather than wasting my time with cheap outrage? I might also suggest looking into American support of regimes quite close in nastiness, and reflect on the issues raised in this thread in regards to long term blow back. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/275 "2003-03-30T09:05:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zeevico > > 1. How much of the Arab media is government owned (including ‘son of the leader and neice of the foreign minister runs X newspaper’ types)? Large percentage, depends on the country. There is an international Arab media, e.g. al-Jazeera, which for all the simple-minded outrage I see here about its reporting, is in fact a fairly decent and free news outlet, ex.-Qatar coverage. It has its biases, but in many respects they are not that much worse than CNN. A bit, and they tend towards a Sky News level of sensationalism from time to time. The new channels al-Arabiyah and Abu Dhabi seem to be doing a decent job. > [@](#): > > 1. How much foreign media is large amount of the Arab public exposed to, if any? Quite a lot, for those who have foreign langauge, satellite dishes are common and decoder piracy common. However, people are really turning to al-Jazeera and its cousins, for they are frank, fairly free, and speak the right idiom. There are, of course, the Arabic radio services of the Europeans that are fairly popular, and US Radio Sawa, which is popular for its music but I get the sense too obviously American biased to convince. > [@](#): > > 1. Do Arabs trust their own media sources, or do they regard these sources as Soviets regarded Pravda? State medias, nah, no one even watches them anymore. The new ones, and al-Jazeera. Well their credibility has gone up immensely. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/276 "2003-03-30T09:08:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*Yeah, what are the Blue Tin cans? > \*\* Blue Tin Cans is slang reference to the enormous blue armored trucks that Egyptian state security organs use. Nothing like seeing one roll by with the hands of the damned sticking out from the barred windows high up on the trucks, and heavily armed police guarding the back door. Freedom and all that you know. ---
**Author:** ![Zeevico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeevico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeevico)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/277 "2003-03-30T09:21:00Z")
**Collounsbury** , - Why do Arabs see Israel as starting the wars between Israel and the Arab states? (From my perspective it would be quite the opposite) - Yes, America has supported many crappy regimes in the past (even Iraq), but how does this justify not kicking one of them out? ---
**Author:** ![Zeevico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeevico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeevico)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/278 "2003-03-30T09:25:40Z")
Rephrasing my last question (the edit button here doesn’t work, odd), I mean to say-what does America’s support of crappy regimes have to do with kicking out one of them and replacing with a democratic regime? ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/279 "2003-03-30T10:12:35Z")
I cannot appreciate enough the time and effort you are investing in composing these long replies, **Coll** Re: your reply to my post, I must confess to changing my mind after I wrote that. In a later post I wrote of how I was indeed beginning to understand why the fear that US/UK will control their destiny can cause deep mistrust of and resentment against the coalition forces and inspire Iraqi soldiers/paramilitary and even civilians to fight. In fact, you have espoused this idea often in this thread. The Washington Post article you cited was interesting. It gave the impression that at least some Iraqi villagers believed in the idea that the entry of US/UK forces _could_ improve their lives. It was after the treatment they received at their hands that they are considering fighting them. Let me ask you something. What are the chances of a noble-intentioned grassroots movement, possibly leaderless in the initial stages, but acquiring a few natural leaders as it progresses, which seeks to seize the “opportunity” and use US/UK troops as “tools” to depose Saddam’s regime and take bulk of the political responsibility of a post-Saddam Iraq. You could think of this as mental masturbation but this could be the substantial change from within that Iraq needs. Of course, there ought to be at least a few well-intentioned leaders with enough passion, zeal, and public reach to get a movement of this scale rolling. Do you see this happening, at least on a smaller scale? What would happen if, say, you and like-minded people around you wish to make it happen? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/280 "2003-03-30T10:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zeevico \* > \*\ ***Collounsbury** , > > - Why do Arabs see Israel as starting the wars between Israel and the Arab states? (From my perspective it would be quite the opposite) Because they largely see Israel as the aggressor, ipso facto. This in part derives from the partly correct view that Israel was enabled or grew out of British colonial policy (given a sinister spin in Arab discourse) and that the US has used Israel as a spike in the “Arab homeland.” One can critique the validity of some of these views, although they are not entirely devoid of truth, but they are what they are. In large part the wars are seen as one large war. > [@](#): > > - Yes, America has supported many crappy regimes in the past (even Iraq), but how does this justify not kicking one of them out? Reread the thread, I discussed this in some detial. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259.md?page=15)