All very good points, tomndebb but wouldnt it be better to form your own committee or organization to monitor the INC and Chalabi in particular rather than set assumption as fact? Strong speculation they may be but they are still speculation. If the US providing transportation for Chalabi is a sign of collusion, why not ask for the same benefits for his opposition and test the theory?
The US has saying nothing about Chalabi being the next leader of Iraq might indicate it is waiting for the people to decide if he is acceptable. I am pretty sure the US means to offer him as a viable candidate but I am less inclined to think that the US will shove Chalabi down the Iraqis throats if they reject him.
Nah… I disagree. I find Coll to be delightful and entertaining and informative - but it’s a question of how you go about the interaction you see. Think of Coll as someone who lerrrrrrrvvvvvvvvvvvs Mental Tennis, and just like in top flight real tennis, the great players are able to modify their game plan to accomodate the varying styles of their opponents. Coll’s really easy to get along with if you adapt the right game plan, and it’s a rewarding experience too.
My point being? It’s foolish to FORCE someone to behave in a certain style just because that’s the style you’d like to see them adopt. Invariably, you merely inculcate an intransigence which exacerbates your initial frustration… as they say, it takes all types for the world to go around, and patience and tolerance are the two finest virtues of wisdom.
Anyway, I digress…
As Coll and a number of other people have pointed out, the real issue, the REAL REAL issue is honesty - and a desire to get rid of the corruption. It seems to me that the Iraqi’s are lobbying for an Islamic system of governance primarily because it’s a massive cry for “wanting to keep the bastards honest”. They’re all so sick and tired of the corruption - in every aspect of life - from the highest levels to the lowest local council levels. And an Islamic system at least enshrines a codified honour system with punitive respones for those who would break that honour system.
Such a state would provide stability. From stability, you would then, slowly, see the seeds of other civil egalitarian institutions blossom. But it has to be said, from everything I’ve read, it’s the desire for STABILITY which is most strident at the moment - and the Iraqi’s believe a theocratic solution is the best solution, right here, right now.
I’ll admit - I’m a bit cynical sometimes when you see religious folks coming towards you bearing gifts - especially when political power is the final endgame - and as such, I have innate reservations about an Islamic theocracy in Iraq being the IDEAL solution due to the potential for non-legitimately elected persons holding political positions who CAN’T be removed from office if things turn bad - but equally true is that for the Western World to attempt to impose a civil model similar to what we ourselves use (without the multitude of instituions necessary to provide the proper checks and balances) well, it too is just as open to exploitation as anything else.
OK. The world’s most powerful nation has just destroyed your military and has three full divisions of infantry on the ground in your country right now and they have just flown in a person who is pretty universally reviled in the region (whom their government has funded for eleven years) and they are going to “offer him as a viable candidate.” Granting even that the administration might not seek to shove him down the Iraqi throats, what conclusion as an Iraqi would you tend to draw?
From the perspective of U.S. policy, why is a convicted criminal who has never spent a day in his adult life in the country even being offered as a “viable candidate”?
Some did/do cite this reason. But not all and not even, necessarily, a majority did. Remember a far larger numbers of Muslims supported the U.S. actions in Afghanistan ( at least in theory, there was occasional differences on how much time the U.S. should spend on trying to negotiate first ).
Indeed, I do. But I see nothing at all alarming in that quote from the Iranian Constitution. Nor do I see it is fundamentally different from similar Christian or Jewish values.
At some level, yes. They all at least acknowledge the Five Pillars of Islam.
I’d say so, yes.
Depends what you mean. On some level, yes. But an Islamic state could take many forms ( and not necessarily be a theocracy ), as could the legal system. There is not a singular conception of either.
Which has far less to do with the difference between the two religions and has far more to do with entrenched modern secularism in the UK. Islam does differ in degree - in general it can be said that Muslim ulema have more influence on society and government and rather less on the individual when compared to Christian clergy. But historically the degree of overlap has been large. Where they differ today is less an expression of a structural difference between the two ( which does exist ) and more down to western modernity
I suspect I percieve a far smaller structural difference than you do, at least in terms of the annals of history. I see no reason why Islam can’t end up going down a parallel ( if probably not identical ) path.
Well, actually it undermines your argument that Islam is somehow uniquely threatening.
The concept exists, though perhaps not in the way you have framed it. To quote:
*The position of the law is that only at such a time when it can be reasonably proven that; there are aggressive designs against Islam; and, there are concerted efforts to eject Muslims from their legally acquired property; and, that military campaigns are being launched to eradicate them. *
A defensive attack by a non-Muslim state against a Muslim state that has aggressed first against the non-Muslim state, which is not intended as an assault upon Islam or an attempt to subjugate or exterminate, does not automatically trigger the above response. So recently Collounsbury cited one conservative Imam that authorized the U.S. action against Afghanistan in religious terms as being a legitimate act of self-defense against a criminal aggressor ( in this case al-Qaeda, sheltered by the Taliban ).
The same concept, by the way, was common in Christendom up until the decline in church authority and the weakening of external threats caused it slowly melt away. The Crusades, for instance, were motivated in part by that exact concept.
Just be sure you don’t fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy of saying, “well, if they were really Muslims they’d do this”, whatever that might be. Islamic theology, again, has no singular concept of what an Islamic state should look like and historically it has been a hotly debated topic internally in the Muslim world.
Quite a mixed bag. It is illegal for non-Muslims to proselytize in the Gulf states ( including Yemen and SA obviously ). Also in Tunisia, Jordan, Sudan, plus non-Arab outliers like the Comoro Islands, Malaysia, Brunei, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Mauritania. Indonesia bans all proselytizing, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Turkmenistan authorizes proselytizing only by the two “registered” religions - Russian Orthodox and Sunni Islam. So does Tajikistan, but they are more flexible on registration, cracking down hard only on Islamists. Chad, curiously, restricts only a particular Muslim opposition group. Several Muslim or largely Muslim countries in Africa ( Senegal, Mali, Niger, Eritrea, Gambia, Cote d’Ivoire - dominated by Christian minority, Tanzania - pretty equally split between Muslims and Christians ) place pretty much no serious restrictions on proselytizing. Neither does Pakistan, by and large ( adverse local reaction being a different matter ). Nigeria is mixed - There was a brief crackdown in Muslim counties at one point, but that has relaxed somewhat - generally it is legal. In Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Syria, Turkey, Bahrain ( a Gulf exception ), Lebanon, Djibouti, Kazakhstan and Bangladesh it is legal, but discouraged to varying degrees ( quiet, low-key missionary work is usually tolerated, but harassment does occur with, again, varying frequency ).
So it depends. The restrictions of course stem from a combination of volatile local politics in some areas, but mostly derive from the very negative Islamic view of apostasy.
Or Russia ( non-Orthodox record is mixed ). Or Armenia ( only the Armenian Church can proselytize ). Romania is similar to Russia. So is Belarus. Bulgaria in another mixed bag ( their are still anti-proselytizing laws on the books, which are intermittently enforced ). Lessee, who else places restrictions or harasses - Burma, Laos, Mongolia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka ( Christians ). Absolutely illegal in Buddhist Bhutan and Hindu Nepal.
You could make that argument. However I’d argue that it ( restrictions on proselytizing, which as you’ll note are not universal ) is a much more a combination of the Islamic abhorrence of apostasy ( which doesn’t reflect on tolerance of other faiths per se ) and underdeveloped insularity. The first is a structural problem that will always be there, I grant, but the second is changeable.
Anyway, enough hijacking. We’re wandering well off topic at this point.
"Why does Iraq want an Islamic State and what has that got to do with US presence?
When the religious Shiites exit their mosques and begin calling for an Islamic state and for the US to leave, it’s probably two sides of the same coin. There can’t be a legitimate Islamic state ruled by non-Muslims, by law, so until the US leaves there’s not even a remote chance of one. That might be the sum total of that particular argument on that particular day.
Now whether we should be giving the Shiites representation for all of Iraq (I think of the Christian fundamentalists here, do I want them speaking for me?) is another story. I saw at least one quote from one of the imams about separation of mosque and state, and apparently a large number of Iraqis would like us to stay and fix infrastructual things at least, so I don’t think we should be hasty in judging what “Iraq” wants based on scenes after Friday prayers.
On the face of it, I might empathize with you but what about what about all the other things that are happeneing? After a late start, the US troops are working with Iraqi police to return order to the major cities. They are trying to rebuild all they destroyed. Coalition forces are setting up hospitals, radio and tv, recovering funds and resources stolen by the regime. They are slowly setting up humanitarian aid stations and bringing water back.
On the flip side, looting is still occuring in areas without US military presence. What would happen if all of Iraq were like that? what happens to humanitarian aid convoys, the Oil for food program? Who will fix the airports, the roads, get rid of unexploded ordinance and help Iraqi hospitals with medicine, clean water and electricity and provide support with their own doctors and mobile hospitals?
The suspicion of a hidden US agenda aside, logistically and for the time being, the Iraqis need the US there.
The US are not proclaiming Chalabi as the new Iraqi leader and as a matter of fact he (Chalabi) personally expressed no desire for that position. He is a viable candidate because he knows the democratic process. Something a people that were ruthlessly oppressed and indoctrinated for most of their lives would have a lesser understanding of. The evidence for his conviction was provided for by the Iraqi regime. The same regime that has more than a billion dollars of US currency stashed away in their posh hideouts while Iraqi children die in hospitals for lack of medicine. The Jordanians are not all completely innocent and pure with their dealings with Saddam. He is a possible candidate afterall, a runner in a race. there are no restrictions for the running.
OK, yay for the mullahs, but do they really think that having the US out of iraq right this minute would make things easier fr them? What about that well liked Shiite cleric who came back from exile and just happened to get himsel shot and hacked to death trying to protect another cleric who just happen to be a saddam loyalist. Seems to be a classic example of shooting your own foot. To impose order, one must have the power and capbility to enforce order. The US leaving so soon will plunge Iraq into a thousand civil wars pitting cities against cities, classes against classes, poor versus not so poor and shiites against sunnis against kurds. They can blame the US all they want but making them leave right now seems illogical.
If I may paraphrase Gandhi, there exists no people who would not rather have their own bad government than that of an alien power.
Not that I am implying that Gandhi would have approved of Saddam’s government, an Iraqi Islamic state, or the US invasion, but I think the sentiment is apt, and something along these lines frequently pops up in countries which were once the victim of colonial rule, and while I don’t wish to hijack this thread into a discussion of the role of the colonial powers in their respective colonies, I think any cursory study of colonialism would explain why people would want to be left to their own devices.
I think shortly after WWII, the US wouldn’t have been seen as a colonial power in the region, since it really wasn’t. But given the past half-century of US involvement in the region, I don’t think it should surprise anyone that this kind of viewpoint might spring up. The actions of the US in Iran, Iraq, Israel, have been discussed to death here. In some cases, the US may have been justified, but nonetheless, the US is now in a position where any action it takes can readily be perceived as imperialism.
While I agree that it is illogical for the Iraqis to want everyone out before civil order can be restored, I find it even more illogical that the US did not anticipate that this sentiment would arise once Saddam was out of power. Short-sighted, in my opinion.
I would agree that we have a moral obligation to not simply destroy one structure and abandon the country. However, your OP did not ask “What should the U.S. do?” You specifically asked why some of them would want us out. I have been providing answers to that specific question.
Not in front of Meet the Press. However, he has been pretty widely reported as lobbying for that position behind the scenes and the fact that he continues as leader of the INC despite increasing opposition over the last couple of years indicates that he has strong support within the administration. (The official version of the INC story is that he “created” it for the purpose of “liberating” Iraq. The other version of the story is that the U.S. was looking to create such a group and he presented himself as a candidate, specifically to manage its internal affairs. In the last few years, however, he has increasingly lobbied to be the next President of Iraq.) Given his history and reputation, the Defense Department should have dropped him at State’s insistence more than two years ago. Instead, we are letting him wander into Iraq looking for all the world like our picked heir apparent to Hussein and State is being criticized by partisan hacks such as Gingrich for not supporting him.
I agree, I agree X~Slayer - and yet, here’s the thing… it matters NOT what you and I have to say about this. It matters NOT whether you and I can look upon calls for the Coalition forces to get the hell out of Dodge City as being thoroughly illogical - what counts is this… the nature of Iraq, and the MENA region in general is that the Imams and the Mosques have long acted now as a means for people to rail and vent against their various shitty governments and the various insitutionalised corruption etc.
As a result, the Imams of Iraq are now, by veritible LIGHT YEARS, singularly the most pivotal source of influence and manipulation within Iraqi society. More influential than Jay Garner. More influential than Chalabi, certainly. And infinitely more influential than anything else. And it’s just the reality of the situation. Accordingly, the Coalition has to roll with that and accept that, and be seen to be accomodating that - because it’s only natural that a fair bit of ego is at play too I rather think.
And any failure by the Coalition to be seen to be accomodating the Imams influence will directly result in antagonistic rhetoric by those Imams - such is the way of nationalist human tendencies.
Which, once again, is why I can’t stress how important it is that the Coalition immediately gets State TV up and running again a.s.a.p. - cold anc calculated and as cynical as it is, the Coalition has to use State TV to get their point across as widely and as quickly as possible - because at the moment, the Imams are currently winning that particular battlefront, not the Coalition.
Just a question. Is all non-Muslim proselytization illegal in Azerbaijan, or does the law only prohibit foreign proselytization? I had thought it was the latter.
The Law on Religious Freedom expressly prohibits religious proselytizing by foreigners, and this is enforced strictly. Government authorities have deported several Iranian and other foreign clerics operating independently of the organized Muslim community for alleged violations of the law. In April 2002, Baku police also arrested a Russian citizen and member of the evangelical Christian Greater Grace Church, Nina Koptseva, along with two other worshippers on a busy Baku street. Koptseva was charged with propagating Christianity and deported to Russia; she and the church deny the charge.
Some X my man, you just don’t like the answers, is what I see.
So you think the Iraqis should be so bloody happy to have the Americans around, after all that’s what you would think. It’s rather this sort of navel gazing that has led our dear current administration astray.
It’s always convenient to blame it on foreign agents, isn’t it? Of course there are Iranian agents, as well as Iraqis who took refuge, quite legit. in Iran. What is the diff, between the two? Be aware of the standards now, since recall the accus. can go the other way, in re Amer. agents.
Now, taking issue with the observation (on nationalist response) typically is more successful if you actually understood it.
Iraq is a state, and perhaps a nation. I clearly argued among its problems is its weak sense of national identity. However weak national identity does not mean absence of national identity, and if there is one lesson one can take from the history of colonialism, and indeed of inter-group conflict, it is there is nothing like the presence of the foreigner to induce group unity. In the case of Iraq, as I rather clearly argued I would say, there is Iraqi-Arab nationalism, split as it were between Sunni and Shiite but nonetheless a weak overlay over the other competing identities, such as tribal and of course religious.
Now, the lack of a unified voice and ‘representation’ is something to be expected in a country that has had its government overthrown, and is hardly relevant to the issue of nationalism or the character of a nationalist response, now is it? It is, in fact, a non-sequitur, although it was a way for you to disparage the protests as ‘mobs’ – in fact this appears entirely inaccurate as by BBC and TV5 accounts, as well as WP and NYT, they have been fairly well organized. By the mosques’ leaderships largely it appears.
At present, by all accounts, the main source of organization – and to no small degree security – is in fact the mosque based neighborhood organizations. Not surprising at all insofar as the one area typically untouched or less invaded by the state is the mosque. The mere assertion that the Arab Sunni and Shiites do not have the force to stand up to … what I don’t know is perhaps of little relevance to the popular resentment felt towards having foreign forces, ‘infidels’ (both non-Muslim and non-Arab, one hardly finds Arab Xians with more positive comments, although to be sure they’re looking to a worse deal than under Sadaam) on one’s soil. The massive looting permitted by American forces, let us dispose of this polite fiction ‘coalition,’ also did much to damage Iraqi popular opinion on the occupation.
The mosque based organizations clearly think, wrongly I would say, but it is clearly their belief, Sunni and Shiite, that they can do it, reform society. Bluster or not, that is a clear sentiment. So, in short the real question you have is “Why don’t these folks think just like me, sitting comfortably so far away, with none of the same experiences nor cultural framework? Quite clearly if they don’t they’re stupid or Iranian agents.”
The reality is rather different.
First, as I thought I rather clearly explained previously, Iraqis and Arabs in general have a long list of thoroughly rational reasons to distrust and dislike the US, from their POV and to a lesser extent objectively. US support of regimes like Egypt, our previous support of Sadaam, pulling the carpet out from an uprising cynically encouraged from afar, etc. do nothing to encourage the idea that the US will in the end set up a proper government. Further to that, of course, is pride. One hears over and over again in interviews Middle Class Iraqis venting about the rampaging looting that US forces allowed, in their view encouraged. Destruction of their country, of their offices, of their livelihoods – while the oil ministry was safely guarded. There are of course rational reasons for some portion of those decision on the part of the US military – although a better job could have and should have been done for other key sites of symbolic importance. But it is in the end the symbolism that counts. The one thing the US forces have been seen to be solicitous of is the oil infrastructure. Seen to be. You can blither on about the whys of that, but it is the sort of thing that clearly grates.
Now on the validity of the Friday demonstrations and the interviews expressing various views, it is always helpful not to fall into the fallacy of composition. There is not a unified Iraqi view, certainly. The demonstrations look to fit the typical profile of such here in the region. Demonstrators in the big Friday demos tend to come from the lower middle class and working classes (in Iraq, that means largely Shiite) – they’re the ones with the least to lose, and the most angry or frustrated, as well as the least likely to see the larger picture that say an engineer might. At the same time the Sunni demonstration I saw seemed to have a professional class profile, equally as angry.
To make some generalizations: (a) Some large percentage of Iraqis do indeed want the foreign power out as soon as possible, the sooner the better. Fear of a new colonial regime, distrust and humiliation are all strong. (b) A goodly percentage of Iraqis also feel the US must help reconstruct the country. I’ve heard the view expressed by the same people as (a). Contradictory? Perhaps, but people are fully capable of being internally contradictory. The issue of foreign soldiers, however, is different from that, in many respects, of foreign assistance. Occupation is resented, assistance is usually not.
Overall this says three things:
(a) Get away from the image of occupier as soon as possible, reduce public exposure of armed patrols etc. as soon as possible. The resentment is real and will grow.
(b) Pour resources into getting the economy up and running, for without that, resentment will harden.
(c) Revise views on Iraqi politics: start working not from this naïve idea of being greeted as ‘liberators’ but with a view to the nationalist reaction.
By the way Boo, I do agree with your sentiments on the corruptibility of the religiously based politics, but the issue is simply arguing that to the masses is not going to work. One has to create a framework, a political framework where it can be tested out, people can see it fail or not work that much diff. than secular politics, and move on.
By the way, the very fact that we apparently intend to pimp Chalabi, who was involved in the collapse of Petra Bank in which alone of the Jordanian banks at the time, the bank did not have sufficient foreign reserves and in which reserves were misstated on the order of hundreds of millions.
New bank scandal evidence against family of leader in waiting
I should say that the Guardian article better matches what I have heard ‘on the street’ so to speak. I should also note that the tied lending issues raised in the Guardian article are regrettably not at all unusual in this part of the world. Big families often own banks which they pressure to make sketchy loans. One reason to avoid small to mid-size banks in the region. In short, nothing in the allegations strike me as … unusual I suppose is the word. They do clearly indicate a fellow with all the worst practices of the ‘Big Families’ around the region, exactly the sort of people we do not want to plop into power. The fact we are pimping him as an Iraqi leader says very bad things, very bad things indeed. About the sophistication of the Defense and Neo Cons behind him (or their honesty), about our policy in general.
I would note that the BBC article quotes some defences of Chalabi in re Petra that are plain nonsensical. The audit was done by a top tier firm, and it is very clear that the fraud was real. Now the one political point I can give credence to is that perhaps Chalabi was not given a pass on the fraud partly because of political reasons. Maybe. Maybe that might be true, but the wider web of financial shenanigans strike me as evidence that the Jordanian charges were well merited – although perhaps he had felt he was well-connected enough to get a bail out and a wink.
I think all this stuff is directly relevant to the OP albeit in a sort of “bigger picture” kind of way. Collounsbury (for example) is more interested in the issue of economic and political reconstruction of Iraq whereas I see economic and political reconstruction as merely smaller components of the bigger philosophical picture - how this kind of reconstruction is likely to take place in an islamic society.
Before the war began, I said a few times that Iraq could be a model for the rest of the middle east, I still think this but I don’t think you can just ignore the islamic flavour of Iraq, pretend it doesn’t exist and try to impose western values on the country. Also economic issues (important though they are) bore me rigid.
You say that all the different islams acknowledge the five pillars. This is true but there are also other, more nebulous, things that unite them such as:
the “brotherhood” concept
the “fear of apostasy” concept
the “distrust of other religions” concept
These things may be more nebulous but they are possibly even more important than the pillars because they permeate islamic society in a more thorough way. The pillars are doctrinal - you can clearly read about them in a book. The other things are more vague - you probably need to actually know muslim society to appreciate how important they are.
The “brotherhood” concept and the “distrust of other religions” concept explain why the Iraqis want America out of Iraq pronto and why muslim countries generally dislike the US. There are christians living quite happily in Iraq and other middle eastern countries, true, but these can be controlled by the muslim majority so they are not seen as a threat. America, on the other hand, is more powerful than the muslim majority and so is seen as a threat.
In a sense, you could say that islam doesn’t like things that are perceived as more powerful than it. The three concepts I listed above all have this in common - they are all things designed to minimise threats to islam. Anything that is so frightened of threats to it must be, at it’s core, deeply insecure. You could say the same thing about communism which tries to eliminate other rival belief systems - look at Soviet Russia or China (which bans religion).
I don’t think you could say the same thing about democracy. Democracy is proud, secure and unafraid of threats. This is because democracy is convinced of it’s own correctness. It doesn’t need to be enforced because it knows that people will always want it anyway.
All religions fear other religions. This isn’t just applicable to islam, but (it seems to me) that islam has this fear in greater measure than other religions which is why it goes to greater lengths to eliminate threats to it. Every time we go to war against an islamic country, our politicians have to go through a big public rigmarole to reassure muslims that we aren’t going to war against islam. We don’t seem to have to do this with any of the other religions.
But anyway, don’t feel you have to respond to this if you think it is hijacking the thread (no doubt we can continue the theme elsewhere another time).
Looking at the collected speeches of GWB over the last 18 months, I think it wouild be quite correct to say “In a sense, you could say that Bush doesn’t like things that are perceived as more powerful than he.”
Which, of course, is why the U.S. has actively interfered with the internal workings of dozens of other countries over the last 100+ years, confident, as we are, in our way of life. And why the U.S. has, in the same period, formed HUAC and held hearings on American “loyalty” in Congress and why a certain large segment of the citizenry expended a lot of effort in the 60s crying “Love it or leave it!”.
An interesting dilemma. I wonder what stage of the reconstruction does this need to be addressed in tho. Certainly if you are right, the imams would be pivotal in the formation of a form of govt if not the form of govt, but at this particular moment, restoration of the basics would seem to be the priority. I would certainly hope there are discussions already taken place and I have reservations on how a non-muslim ex-general can accomodate clerics of great influence to conform with his overall plan of rebuilding especially if the clerics disagree on his very presence there in Iraq.
This was so much easier (relatively) in Afghanistan when all we had to deal with were tribal factions. At at least at that level, thee was some common point of interest that can be reached which can be addresses and negotiated. When it becomes a religious issue then it muddies the negotiation process. It would be far easier if Garner talks directly to Allah than to deal with several hostile imams. …thats a joke, son. i dont hear laughin…
This is exactly the level of arrogance that dissuades me from even attempting to debate this issue with you. Your bias ,for a lack of a better term, may be indicative of the sentiments and frustrations of the people of Iraq (and I would give you a great and considerable leeway to even make that postulation) but it does not address the issue of the urgent need of the Iraqi people to have the US in Iraq, whether they like them there or not. Your divinations of what you gleen to be what I think are not only off the mark but are insulting and nowhere near the point of the OP. I dont care if the Iraqis hate the US, now or later. The fact is that they are weak and vulnerable at this present time and that the only nations willing to help them are headed by the US.
You seem forward the notion that the expectation of gratitude for liberation or support to be a totally american sentiment and quite alien to peoples in the middle eastern region. Fine. We’ll deal with that as it progresses if that is the case. But with all your spin and your historical hypothesis of possible evil intentions, the proclivity of wrong doing and examples of past regimes, when it comes to forming a religious state, you have this to say:
Gee, thats all I was really asking for. Have the Iraqis strenghten their national Identity or even create a new one, have them create a framework to harness that identity and see if it works or not. Rebuild it or change it if it doesnt work, fine tune it if it does.
This can all be done with the US in the sidelines making sure No One messes with this process. They dont have to love us, they dont even have to trust us. Have them scrutinize every action and procedure made by the US administrator. Let them write articles, expose every nuance, watch them with magnifying lens and keep constant vigil over them. Just let them stay there until the Iraqi political framework is secure and effectively functioning.
