There was once a country with oppressive quasi-fascistic regime, an international pariah, subjected to sanctions by most countries; the country that was considered a blemish upon the world, where regime change was absolutely imperative and no compromises were possible. That country, of course, was the South African Republic.
After apartheid regime gradually relinquished power, the virtual civil war ensued, primarily between Zulus and Xhosas, replete with horific atrocities and mass slaughter.
Firstly in the second part of your post comparing two totally different things the kind of sectarian slaughter going in Iraq cannot be compared to the rise in conventional crime in South Africa (primarily of course because there has also been a huge rise in conventional crime in Iraq, as well, its just lost in the general slaughter)
Actually the comparison is very good one. Before the collapse of the Aparteit regime the considered opinion was civil war was inevitable, because of the kind of inter-tribal violence you describe (which was encoraged by factions within the white security forces, who wanted to prevoke a civil war). But because the regime was brought down from within (the regime of sanctions certainly helped of course), and the actions of politicains like Mandela it was able peacfully transition to democracy. The rival factions were brought into the political process and violence died down as after of the election(5000 a year before the election, 1000 year afterwards) , as your quote points out (unlike in Iraq where sectarian slaugher has INCREASED after the various elections). This WOULD never have happened if an outside power had invaded South Africa and deposed the regime by force. Just as in Iraq people in the White establishment would have viewed those who cooperated with the occupiers as collaborators (just as Sunni extremists view Sunnis who take part in the political process as collaborators). And the polical process would be doomed from start.
In the future when pro-war types start saying “its not our fault Iraq is such a mess, it was a power keg just waiting to blow-up, etc…”. I will be sure to point out South Africa as to why “yes it is our fault”.
I would say that people would continue to have second thoughts about Iraq for several reasons:
First, the initital case presented by Bush and Blair for the war, the WMD. That allegation proved to be false, and resulted in great loss of credibility for both leaders. As the search for the WMD continued and failed, it provided much fodder for discussion.
Second, the actual level of involvement of the countries in question. No one sent troops to fight the white SA security forces. But Iraq was invaded, at a great cost to Iraq and the invaders. Nations that sent troops will contiue to question that decision so long as the suffering of those troops, or in many cases their misdeeds, fill the news.
Third, can the newbie make an Old Doper Joke and say Hi, Opal?
Fourth, American and Iraqi mismanagement of the country will continue to fuel debate, more so since America is do deeply involved in it and since it continues to make such promises of a rosy post invasion Iraq.
Fifth, the Iraqi case came in the context of the war on terror and unprecedented (un)Islamic terrorism. As these two continue, the impact of the invasion of Iraq will remain an issue.
Sixth, George Bush has become such a polarising figure in America that the sinlge most significant decision of his adminstration has to be a subject of debate.
Could you spell out exactly what parallels you see? Because I’m not really seeing them. After all, if you’re just founding the comparison on civil war, why not analogize with the US Civil War?
The rest of the post has been dealt with quite nicely by others, but to answer your questions:
Hell, yes!
What’s going on in Iraq is a lot more than just the “removal of Saddam”. South Africa was never occupied by an brutalising outside force the way current Iraq is. Makes a lot of difference. In fact, it’s the continued occupation of the country that makes it not South Africa. Leave, let them have their civil war, maybe they’ll turn out like us at the end. We’re doing OK.
Exactly right, however it only serves to reinforce my point.
It was possible to force SA National Party to relinquish power without invasion, just as it was possible Sandinistas and Milosevic to relinquish power without invasion. It was not possible to remove Saddam without invasion.
In South Africa, Nicaragua and Serbia, the movement was slowly toward free elections, that eventually resulted in regime changes. The last elections under Saddam resulted in 99% approval (or was it 98%?). Saddam was determined to stay no matter what.
Fair enough.
Iraq must serve as a reminder of our own shortcomings. We are not perfect. We do have brutal and sadistic prison wardens, as reinforced by Abu Ghraib. We do have an abundance of egotistic bumbling fools at all walks of business, as reinforced by multiple Iraq reconstruction fiascos.
Of course your reinforced point here makes sense after the goal posts were moved. Remember that your point was that having second thoughts about the removal of Saddam in Iraq meant that we should also have second thoughts about SA, as it turns out your analogy was silly.
And yet there was a big chance to pull a Haiti maneuver in Iraq:
Powell had experience with that, as Haiti showed, there was an opportunity to get Sadamm out as soon it was clear the invasion was coming. (IIRC maintaining contact with the Haitian dictators paid off when Powell showed them, almost in real time, the amount of troops and firepower coming in, they accepted exile then)
I’m convinced if a leader was not hell bent on invading, a “Haiti solution” would have occurred, but I’m now more convinced that other factors entered into the decision to invade, most of them criminal IMHO.
Indeed, keep that in mind before you post misleading OP’s like the one in this thread.
I do think the white folks in SA did foresee what civil war could get them.
“Then we could send our ambassador over there and he could pull President Botha aside and say, 'P.W.–let me talk to you for a minute. You know you’ve got 2 million white people and 8 million black people in this country? Right? Does the name Custer mean anything to you, son?”
I wouldn’t exactly quote Nicaragua as a successful international intervention. The US opposition to the Sandanistas resulted in a savage civil war, in which the US supported some of the most increbily brutal terrorist insurgents in the region’s history (Selling arms to terrorists sponsors in Iran, and funding the drug trade, in the process).
And the downfall of Milosovich was not the result of free elections, it was a popular uprising.
Sorry. I was incompletely quoting the OP. Make that “virtual civil war”. My emphasis. Or think of it as a sarcastic way of saying that any sectarian conflict pre-elections in South Africa was about as close to a civil war as a Bloods vs. Cripps gunfight. What’s happening now in Iraq does not compare, it’s so much worse…
Hell, most days I can walk to the corner store without getting murdered or raped more than once, maybe twice.
They had democracy THEN, or at least were trying their damndest, in spite of U.S. interference. Daniel Ortega was elected twice, and lost power in the third election he contested. The election he lost wasn’t anything new in Nicaragua; it was the regularly scheduled vote.