Sure. But it’s up to the decision makers to decide who they’ll choose as advisors, to whom they’ll listen and who they’ll believe. And they’re likely to pick people who share their opinions.
The argument about the military decisions made by Rumsfeld apparently despite the contrary opinion of some high-ranking officers (Including Clarck, or am I mistaken?) could be an example ot this.
Welcome to the SDMB, Zeevico! Good first post. 
And I hope somebody comes along to answer your questions, 'cause I’d like to know, too.
BTW, in case anybody hadn’t heard, Al Jazeera was officially hacked yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/27/sprj.irq.aljazeera.hacked.ap/index.html
WTG, “Patriots”. :rolleyes:
New poster here, too, though I already made a handful 
I am not sure whether government OWNERSHIP is per se a concern for dismissal. In many western countries, some stations are held wholly or partially by the public hand to ensure they do not need to fully submit to issues of demand, but rather provide a solid information basis for the public.
Al Jazeera, for that matter, has already roused quite some ruckus in numerous arab nations for their ‘disrespectful’ treatment of the governments in question. Many of the Al Jazeera journalists are BBC trained, IIRC. A lot of governments have tried to push Qatar to censor Al Jazeera or at least curb their activities, but so far, Qatar has been pretty hands-off, as far as I could gather. In response, several other nations created government controlled networks of their own, which is why you can occasionally see newsstrips of a whole lot of minor arab stations on TV these days. THOSE I’d treat with care. Al Jazeera, while frequently treated with scorn by a lot of voices I’ve seen in the US, mainly covers a different perspective on a lot of issues in which the US doesn’t look the way said people want them to look.
I have a new question. News is comming in this morning Friday 10:00 am central time that Syrians are crossing the border into Iraq to help fight coalition forces. Collounsbury what do you make of this if true and is this being reported in local news outlets?
I must point out it seems as if it is Syrian civilians not military personel.
Also seeing as how the American media outlets don’t seem very interested in reporting anything about how the Arab street is reacting I am curious how this Fridays prayer meetings turned out can you give us a first hand view or can you give us a view as to what you have observed from any local media?
Thanks
Guys, let’s remember that Coll went bye-bye for the weekend yesterday (see previous page of the thread), and we probably won’t see responses from him for another day or so.
I have not been a supporter of the Bush administration, and I tend think that Bush isn’t a particularly competent President, particularly with regards to foreign policy.
However, the one area I really gave him credit for was surrounding himself with intelligent and experienced people. But I think that credit was in error. It now appears to me that the mistake was that all of these folks have the same idealogy, and what appears to us as arrogance or ignorance is really the result of neo-con group-think. I should note that Powell was probably the exception, but has somehow been overwhelmed with opposing opinion.
I also stated previously that this is a war of arrogance. On the part of Bush, on the part of Saddam, Chirac, etc. Only Blair has shown any statesmanship.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/opinion/28KRUG.html]More on AZCowboy’s interpretation:
Hey, folks. Couple of interesting articles I came across discussing historical conditions in Iraq and dealing with post-war speculation -
More on the political side:
http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/iraq/tripp/
More on the economic side:
http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/iraq/khafaji/
That is essentially accurate. I don’t have the exact passage handy right at this moment, but basically it authorizes using force against those who make war on Muslims for reasons of religion or seek to drive them from their homes. It’s a clause frequently invoked re: Israel.
Is it important vis-a-vis Iraq? Well, conceivably it’s a complication and problem. Depends entirely on how much coalition forces are perceived as entering as conquerers that intend to stay and displace those they don’t like. And that, unfortunately, I can’t speak to with any authority. But it is one more potential motivator to add to the list.
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Actually I’m a night-shift worker ( but today is a day off ), who is also an obsessive insomniac ;).
*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
Bingo - but I would contend that it’s of a particular kind of neo-con ideological group-think. One, I think, largely influenced by Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. It would be interesting to read about the influence that Senator “Scoop” Jackson had on this group (my understanding is that Wolfowitz and maybe Perle were associated with Jackson back in the day).
Mr. Svinlesha provides a short overview in this thread outlining The National Security Strategy of the United States which I think neatly outlines this particular neo-con outlook. Also, I’m pretty sure Frontline did a report regarding the genesis of the strategy about a month ago.
I have to agree in re Powell being overwhelmed (and thus marginalized to some extent - he not being of the same neo-con ideology as Wolfowitz, et al.) in his position as Secretary of State. I think had Bush relied more on Powell’s political and diplomatic savvy post 9-11, then the US could probably have garnered more widespread support from other countries and helped generate the necessary and sufficient moral justification (In re US populace and world at large) for war against Iraq.
I find myself agreeing with Libertarian’s protests here, which despite appearing somewhat exaggerated to Collounsbury resonate with me.
I am not an American, and in fact, grew up in India with a fair exposure to colonial history. The phrase White Man’s burden irks me to a degree that I am forced to summon all my restraint! It is not shocking to find Indians who still believe that in the overall picture, the British did more good than bad for the country and contributed to ridding the brown-man of his ignorance and savagery. This sentiment continues to thrive to this day thanks to pseudo-historians like Dinesh D’ Souza and his ilk who are not-so-surprisingly embraced by neo-conservatives in America.
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. 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. 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. The Kurds must remember the brutal treatment at Saddam’s hands which continues to this day. 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.
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 (?)
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?
(That seems to belie basic human survival laws. Didn’t the people in Afghanistan rejoice the Taliban’s exit?)
Ah yes the “I hate brocoli but love brussels sprouts. You hate brocoli, therefore you must also love brussels sprouts.” argument.
Truth is, as always a lot more complex and less binary. My hatred of brocoli might not be anywhere near as strong as yours, or vice versa.
At the risk of getting flamed, I think that the dominance of Anglo-American culture in the west has made it very difficult to comprehend other cultures POVs and mores. This is not a good thing, especially not when combined with the jingoistic “my culture is the best” attitude which seems to be increasingly prevalent these days.
Two interesting articles. They’re investing articles, but they have relevance as follows (you might need to register to see these, but it’s free.):
1 - The Battle of Badr: according to this article, Mohammed took advantage of a sandstorm to interdict supply lines of his enemy. Tamerlane, what’s the poop on this?
2 - This one could make a person paranoid. It claims the possibility that Syria could side with Iraq if the war drags on is quite real:
Comments on that one welcome. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?column=Thom+Calandra’s+StockWatch&dist=nwtwatch&siteid=mktw
Will Syria Play a Part in Iraq?
Mods, wanna try fixing that? I have no idea what went wrong there.
My understanding is that many Afghani’s, at least those outside Kabul, find the current situation of being run by warlords and thugs as worse than the Taliban. At least there was a central authority in the Taliban. As it is, the new government controls little more than Kabul. So I’m not sure this is an accurate assessment.
In Iraq, my understanding is that while most may hate Saddam, they hate the US even more. Some may resist due to loyalty to Saddam, many others may resist due to nationalistic feelings for Iraq.
The perception you reflect (wouldn’t they want to get rid of Saddam?) seems broadly accepted here in the states. Unfortunately, I have little confidence it is correct, and information in this thread doesn’t help. My impressions are very much like those shared by Mostly Harmless. But I really don’t understand why others find those impressions offensive.
We should have solid evidence soon, although I doubt that Basra would be a good measuring stick. Whatever we experience in Basra, I would expect it to be worse in Baghdad.
You know what? Me too - until recently. I work with many Iraqis, most of them very “westernised”, long term expats, etc.
Before the war began, they pretty much all expressed loathing and despise for Saddam. Now however, their pride is so hurt by this invasion, their anger at America for what they perceive as its arrogance and aggression, it has led several of them to actually support him.
One guy, who is a very devout religious guy (not a fundamentalist, think more like a wise vicar) - who is very wise, very learned, very calm and patient, said to me: “Yes - we need Saddam removed, we wanted him removed. But not like this. Not like this. It needed to be done from inside, in the right time.”
We ran a story today (came through Reuters) about expat Iraqis in Jordan who are returning home to fight for their country, against the invading western troops.
So yes - these people will willingly resist, and many will continue to willingly resist.
And I would also warn that even if the US “delivers” them from Saddam, even if they are grateful for this, most of them will utterly resist any western attempts to run them, or impose a “democracy” upon them. You may consider this unfair or ungrateful, but it needs to be faced. They do not want us there. It is their country, they want to run it.
I think best case scenario for now is when Saddam is removed, bring in UN peacekeepers if and when needed (eg pockets still loyal to Baath), US/UK forces get the hell out, and let them pick themselves up their own way. Do this - give them their dignity and autonomy back - and do it graciously and without reference to them having “needed” help with removing Saddam, or owing gratitude, or owing money. They shouldn’t have to pay for a war they didn’t choose. If the aim was to remove Saddam to liberate the people, then it is an act of charity. Seize Baath assets, use them as reparations, but don’t expect a broken, desperate nation to pay for their own invasion.
Well said istara.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. Pre election a lot of people said Bush is an idiot but look at his team. That team seems to be made up of people from largely the same background. They have never had to be diplomatic or international, and man does it show.
I had never thought that these guys may be pure evil and everything done thus far has been part of a larger plan and not bumbling incompetence. I’m going to have to think that one over. I find it hard to believe that a group of people want to destroy the UN, return to the cold war, and develop a new colonial empire, but somedays it doesn’t seem that farfetched.
Terry Gross from Fresh Air on NPR interviewed Christopher Dickey today. He’s Paris bureau chief and Middle East regional editor for Newsweek, and is currenty in Jordan. He spoke at length about the regional attitudes, and echoed a lot of the positions set out in this (excellent) thread. Terry Gross, like many of us reading this thread, seemed truly surprised to learn that, despite the general hatred of Saddam in the ME, the US liberators are not being welcomed with open arms, and, in fact are being seen as an invading force. Mr. Dickey’s take on the situation is, if anything, even more negative than Collounsbury’s. (At least Coll thinks that it would be possible to salvage the situation, however unlikely it may be.)
Listen here.
(If the show is no longer linked on that page, use the date buttons to choose March 28, 2003.)
Another point that Mr. Dickey made is that the risk of proliferation of WMDs might actually increase after the fall of Saddam’s regime. His thought is that the WMD scientists that are now under Saddam’s thumb will disperse and become freelancers willing to sell their knowledge to the highest bidders.