Taking down Saddam('s statue).

[danholo]

Anyone see that on TV today? Those Iraqis sure were jubilant. What a scene. Putting that US flag on the statue wasn't the best move, at least they replaced it with an Iraqi one. I even saw some Iraqis waving the American flag somewhere.

[Am Yisrael]

Today sums up what the word "liberation" is about. Many Baghdaddys today rejoiced as the US army moved steadily though the streets with hardly any resistance. Some were even throwing flowers and openly welcoming the soldiers. As the tanks sat round the square where Saddams most biggest and well known statue of him stands.. Iraqis were already there with sledgehammers and trying to rip as much as they could of the enourmous statue down. When the US stuck a noose round Saddams statues head and a US and Iraqi flag.. the crowd were cheering with enormous energy. What an amazing historic site... it brought tears to my eyes.

That bastard Saddam is now finished. I hope EVERY Arab and EVERY anti-war protester in the world sees this and acknowledges that they choose to support Saddam by not realising that Iraqis need liberation. Its important that every Iraqi sees this image from today, for it will aid the coalition troops greatly.

[Alfred]

Those happy Iraqis can thank Russia, Germany, Belgium, France and the UN for their wonderful liberation....


What you say?

Oh.

I'm sorry. Never mind.

[cerulean]

I read that even Al-Jazeera is showing this footage, including Iraqis driving around with the American flag.

[michael]

It was an amazing scene.

And 'scene' is the right word.

What wasn't seen so much was wider shots of the area. When you see those what looked like a multitude of cheering Iraqis is in fact a rather small crowd surrounded by empty streets except for a few tanks.

As an iconic moment it certainly was powerful, very reminiscent of the WWII photo 'Iwo Jima', which was also a staged 'photo-op'.

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
It was an amazing scene.

And 'scene' is the right word.

What wasn't seen so much was wider shots of the area. When you see those what looked like a multitude of cheering Iraqis is in fact a rather small crowd surrounded by empty streets except for a few tanks.

As an iconic moment it certainly was powerful, very reminiscent of the WWII photo 'Iwo Jima', which was also a staged 'photo-op'.

Oh, pipe down! :rolleyes:

There are plenty of shots, from all over Iraq, on the jubilation of many, many people. This carping is annoying.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=49705#post49705

Arab press responses were interesting. More ethusiastic than the antiwest-west. The usual suspects either ignored it or maintained the same party line of before. But on the whole they supported the end of Saddam. You folks should put down zmag and the sacremento bee and read al Hayat.

[michael]

Sorry to rain on your parade.

I liked especially, the small US flags they were waving. Lucky shopkeepers in downtown Baghdad were selling them!

However, there are other images that have rarely made it onto our TV screens.

Ones like that of Ali Ismail Abbas, 12, who had both of his arms blown off at the shoulder when a missile struck his home in the middle of the night killing his parents and several of of his siblings. That's the wrong story isn't it?

Or howabout this interview with an Iraqi that appeared in an English newpaper;
""It was when I saw the looting of the government ministries that I knew everything had changed, and particularly when they toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Paradise Square

Even before the war began I knew the system was finished. It was an unfair war between the two greatest countries in the world, America and Britain, and Iraq.

We are a small country that has suffered from sanctions for more than 12 years, so even if there were any people who loved or liked The Man they would not support him because they hate war and he has led us into three wars.

But yesterday, when I saw the looting of the ministries and the official buildings, the teardrops stopped at the corner of my eyes. When I saw our people stealing and the Americans laughing.

I am very sad for my country. Very sad for Baghdad. To see the Americans inside it is very difficult for me. Because they invaded my country.”

Kamal’s words are interrupted by the noise of explosions and artillery outside. He grimaces and points out of the window.

“What does that mean? That means it is not finished. There are still many people fighting. Not because of the regime. Because they love their country.”" (Times)


Some people just don't know how to be grateful, do they?

[Mediocrates]

Who is fighting still? Even the Arab press is publically proclaiming that the Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard were designed not to fight a war but to protect the Baath party from the Iraqis themselves.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.topica.com/lists/saulsinger/read/message.html?mid=802506841



Bernard Lewis, as always, insightful about the middle east, Iraq and the Palestinians.

[elke]

Michael, those images you speak of: kids with arms blown off, women bloody from shrapnel, and other such horrors - are indeed painful to watch. They do need to be seen, they do need to be considered, and they do need to be spoken of - shouted from the roofs even.

However, it's those images that we do not see: the torture chambers, where men hung off the ceiling for days on end, the mothers shuffling through the papers to see if they can find the trace of their child in the bureaucratic lingo of the Secret Police, - those should be looked at as well.

You see, because of the evil of some men, the first set of images is necessary in order to stop the second. The first set of images will disappear, once the second set is gone. It is essential to remember that: after WWI, people said "Never again!" - and WWII happened. After the Holocaust, - we again said "Never again!" - but proceeded to handle dictators with kid gloves, in the name of "national sovereignty".

We must stop enabling these savages to do what they will with human beings, who are too weak to defend themselves. This time, we must give a resounding "NO" to dictatorships and evil, in the only language they understand: overwhelming, unstoppable force!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
Sorry to rain on your parade.

I liked especially, the small US flags they were waving. Lucky shopkeepers in downtown Baghdad were selling them!

However, there are other images that have rarely made it onto our TV screens.

Ones like that of Ali Ismail Abbas, 12, who had both of his arms blown off at the shoulder when a missile struck his home in the middle of the night killing his parents and several of of his siblings. That's the wrong story isn't it?

Or howabout this interview with an Iraqi that appeared in an English newpaper;
""It was when I saw the looting of the government ministries that I knew everything had changed, and particularly when they toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Paradise Square

Even before the war began I knew the system was finished. It was an unfair war between the two greatest countries in the world, America and Britain, and Iraq.

We are a small country that has suffered from sanctions for more than 12 years, so even if there were any people who loved or liked The Man they would not support him because they hate war and he has led us into three wars.

But yesterday, when I saw the looting of the ministries and the official buildings, the teardrops stopped at the corner of my eyes. When I saw our people stealing and the Americans laughing.

I am very sad for my country. Very sad for Baghdad. To see the Americans inside it is very difficult for me. Because they invaded my country.”

Kamal’s words are interrupted by the noise of explosions and artillery outside. He grimaces and points out of the window.

“What does that mean? That means it is not finished. There are still many people fighting. Not because of the regime. Because they love their country.”" (Times)


Some people just don't know how to be grateful, do they?

For what reasons would you be willing to go to war?

[mimil]

Like Stalin during World War II, when the Germans invaded Russia, Mr Saddam felt that if he could keep his secret police forcing Iraqis to fight long enough, he could defeat the invaders.

And like Stalin, Mr Saddam has extreme contempt for human life.

Stalin’s victims totalled over 30 million.

Mr Saddam had thousands of Kurds gassed to death in 1991 and personally took part in the purge of Ba’ath party members in the 1970s.

After coming into power in 1968, Mr Saddam began the “Stalinisation” of Iraq by building a one-party state based on secrecy and ruthless discipline.

While Stalin’s malign ideology remained Mr Saddam’s driving force, the man also drew from another equally monstrous tyrant - Adolf Hitler.

Mr Saddam was attracted to one uniquely Nazi institution - the Schutzstaffel or SS.

These were the special security, military and police units composed of party members.

Mr Saddam’s Republican Guards were modelled on them.

Indeed, Mr Saddam models himself after Stalin as no one has.

As a young member of the ruling Ba’ath Party, he would go around the party’s offices telling people how he planned to make Iraq a Stalinist state once he took over.

And that was exactly what he did.

Stalin set up a police state that was admired by even the Nazis for its ruthless efficiency.

Mr Saddam became obsessed with Stalin’s political theories during his exile in Egypt in the early 1960s and he began to apply them as he built up his power base after his return to Iraq in 1968 when the Ba’ath Party took power.

A meticulous organiser and planner, Mr Saddam, like his Soviet idol, proceeded to organise the party and assumed responsibility for as many departments as possible, with an eye to consolidating it all into absolute power.

Another trait he shares with Stalin is his irrational paranoia.

Nobody, not even those who swore personal allegiance to him, was free from fear of arrest and “liquidation”.

Mr Saddam rotated the head of his security police and Republican Guards regularly.

Stalin certainly out-did Mr Saddam when it came to domestic oppression and he wielded nuclear arms.

But both showed what was possible through the exercise of power in the context of modern technology.

The deeds of these two displayed to a degree unparalleled in history what humans, organised into bureaucracies and authoritarian hierarchies, are capable of in terms of creating death and misery, and enslaving the human spirit.

It was argued at the time, that the removal of Stalin was a problem for the Soviet people to solve.

Except that despite being 190-million strong, they could not do it.

Likewise, the Iraqis today with Mr Saddam; 22 million of them could not do it and it was left to the coalition forces to do it.

One of the major parallels between Mr Saddam and Stalin is the relation they shared with their predecessors.

Stalin played second fiddle to Lenin for a long time and during that time Lenin became very suspicious of Stalin.

Mr Saddam did the same thing with President Ahmed Hassan Bakr and towards the end President Bakr became very suspicious of Mr Saddam and tried to get rid of him.

But it was too late.

By then, Mr Saddam was in control of the whole country and Mr Bakr was shoved aside and replaced.

Mr Saddam became president.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/todaynews/view/589/1/.html

[elke]

There is another despot that Saddam, while probably completely unaware of it, is similar to, IMO: King Herod the Idumean.

Paranoid, cruel, disdainful of his people and those close to him, minority ruler (i.e. belonging to a minority within his subjects' community), - and a prolific builder of beautiful architecture, which he hoped would be his legacy to the posterity.

Instead, it's his cruelty and horrible death that is remembered 2000 years later, - which is likely to be the legacy of Saddam as well, although whether he will be remembered at all 2000 years from now is a good question.

[Mercury]

I think paranoia, cruelty and disdain are rather common among absolute rulers. To my knowledge, Alexander Macedonian, for example, was no more compassionate than Herod. The reason that Herod, unlike Alexander, got himself so bad a reputation was that his history was written mainly by christians :D

[Mediocrates]

While Herod has the reputation of suppressing all of Judea ruthelessly, Alexander has the reputation of for the most part leaving the conquered people to go about with their lives relatively unmolested. For example Alexander did not I think require the Jews to give up Hebrew and/or Judaism which is something the Syrian viceroys of Roman Judea tried several times to do.


But the point is taken; "How do you think a man like me got to be a man like me?", or, "What good is power if you can't abuse it?"

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
While Herod has the reputation of suppressing all of Judea ruthelessly, Alexander has the reputation of for the most part leaving the conquered people to go about with their lives relatively unmolested. For example Alexander did not I think require the Jews to give up Hebrew and/or Judaism which is something the Syrian viceroys of Roman Judea tried several times to do.


I'm afraid you might be mistaking seleucids (syrians) for the romans. Before christianity the romans were generally (though not always) very considerate about other peoples religions as long as all taxes were paid and the same can be said of Herod. Alexander, who tried to build an empire from diverse peoples, had also tried to blend himself into all local cultures. Unfortunately, he and his troops had a nasty habit occasionally to masacre the entire population of a conquered town (like Tyre).

[elke]

I was referring more to Saddam's personal qualities and style of "leadership", rather than historical comparison to other despots. It was actually the beauty of the palaces and other buildings in Iraq, that brought King Herod the Idumean to my mind - and then, some other pieces fell into place, like killing his cousins/sons-in-law, etc.

[Mediocrates]

thanks for that correction..

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
For what reasons would you be willing to go to war?

A difficult question.
The easy answer is in cases of 'direct attack' and 'the imminent threat of attack' as says the UN Charter. This is open to interpretation by those who wish to do so, but I think provides a reasonably clear set of guidelines to those who accept them in good faith rather than as a pretext that can be invoked as required.

I think Elke makes a good point ;
"We must stop enabling these savages to do what they will with human beings, who are too weak to defend themselves. This time, we must give a resounding "NO" to dictatorships and evil"

If Elke refers to "this time" as being Iraq and that the 'we' giving a "resounding no" is to the Western complicity in helping to establish and maintain these dictatorships, then I would quite agree.

However, I'm getting a little nervous already. Ahmed Chalabi is flown in on a US military aircraft. A US favoured Shia cleric is murdered in Najaf. Another US favouite pops up now proclaiming himself as mayor of Baghdad.
While a select group are invited to meet in the old airforce base near Nasiriyah, there are 20,000 Shia Muslims protesting in Nasiriyah (reportedly chanting the following "Yes to freedom... Yes to Islam... No to America, No to Saddam," )
The message is that we should note how free the Iraqis are now - they can protest. Before, we know what would have happened to them.
But yesterday in Mosul, Mashaan al-Juburi gave a pro-US speech which aparently lead to some anger in the crowd, ending with US forces shooting dead at least 7 people. The US military says they were fired on, Iraqis interviewed say the US troops fired directly at the crowd as they surged foward towards al-Juburi.


Western imperial history is replete with examples of the establishment of dictatorships, or of favouritism bestowed onto small select groups in exchange for their co-operation and suppression of the local population. Democracy has never been high on the list of priorities, as one the enduring products of the 20thC. carve-up of the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia), shows only too well.

[Mediocrates]

Ba'athism, in Iraq and in Syria are at their hearts, fundamentally totalitarian systems. This is not mere rhetoric, this is what they are in fact. They are modelled on Stalinist top down central controlled autocracy. They are the modern police state. We in the west can go online and make all sorts of claims that the US is a police state or George Bush is a fascist, but one needs only look over there in Damascus and Baghdad to see a living breathing example of that. A real one, where people are killed for nothing where saying the wrong word puts children in prison where the leaders live in obscene opulence that would make Louis XIV proud. Where power transfers the same way it did 3000 years ago.

These are not rhetorical devices like "What about all those rich Republicans in America?" This is real, this is how the Iraqis lived and how the Syrians live still. That the Syrian army occupies southern Lebanon and not northern Israel and eastern Turkey is a statement of ability not intent.

And while we demand an apology for the anarchy that results when totalitarianism collapses (did you know that the mean life expectancy in Russia is almost below 50 - ten years less than under Communism and that all public health problems from AIDS to TB to cholera are exploding?) we tolerate all the grinding oppression that brought them there to begin with. Why is that?

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

And while we demand an apology for the anarchy that results when totalitarianism collapses ..... we tolerate all the grinding oppression that brought them there to begin with. Why is that?

That's an excellant question.

If we look at Iraq, it was then, as it is now - a question of western powers manipulating events, not in the best interests of local people, but in the best interests of the empire.

The original setup of Iraq was one designed to ensure that it was a relatively weak state that would be forever reliant on outside powers. This, Gertrude Bell achieved with some success. Originally the French laid claim to the Mosul provence but were out done by the British and accepted a share in the Turkish Oil Company as compensation. How's that for a recurring theme? The US was there too, but in those days, it was still Britian that called the shots, so the US had to bide its time.

Of course the question applies just as well to Egypt and Saudi Arabia were we still see "..all the grinding oppression" before the collapse. But it's a question that well disciplined people avoid, as it leads to some uncomfortable moments contemplating, not just the tolerence, but the active assistance in 'oppression' and from where it comes.

[Mediocrates]

But you seem to have skipped over the last 50 years of history. Post colonialism assumes an unlimited amount of time of non functional statehood. It forms the core of that system. Unortunately for the them free countries eventually have to be responsible for themselves and to their own people.

1932 October 3 - Iraq becomes an independent state.

1958 July 14 - The monarchy is overthrown in a military coup led by Brig Abd-al-Karim Qassim and Col Abd-al-Salam Muhammad Arif. Iraq is declared a republic and Qasim becomes prime minister.

1959-1963 - Saddam Hussein, 22-year old Ba'th Party member, flees Baghdad for Damascus and Cairo after involvement in an assassination attempt against Qasim. Cairo is then center of the Nasserite Pan-Arab ideology girding the Ba'th Party.

1963 February 8 - Qasim is ousted in a coup led by the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party (ASBP). Six months of chaos follow, prompting another military coup.

1963 November 18 - The Ba'th government is overthrown by Arif and a group of military officers. 5000-6000 Iraqis are executed in backlash against communism.

1964-1966 - Saddam Hussein jailed as a member of the Ba'th Party.

1966 April 17 - President Arif is killed in a helicopter crash on April 13 and succeeded by his elder brother, Maj-Gen Abd-al-Rahman Muhamad Arif.

Rise of Saddam Hussein

1968 July 17 - A Ba'th-led coup ousts Arif and Gen Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr becomes president. Saddam Hussein, relative of Bakr, emerges as Vice President, deputy head of the Revolution Command Council (RCC), and chief interlocutor with the Kurds.

1970 March 11 - RCC and Mullah Mustafa Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), sign a peace agreement.

1972 - Iraq nationalizes the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). Iran and Iraq are the region's major oil-producers and vie for dominance in the Gulf.

1973 - In the wake of an attempted coup against Bakr, Saddam Hussein consolidates his control of the internal security services and management of oil resources.

1974 - Iraq grants limited autonomy to the Kurds, in accord with the 1970 agreement, but the KDP rejects it. KDP rebellion fails as Iran withdraws support in exchange for possession of disputed Shatt al-Arab islet between Iraq and Iran.

1975 March - At a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Algiers, Iraq and Iran sign a treaty ending their border disputes.

1979 January 16 - Islamic Revolution ousts the Shah of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini, who had lived in Iraq from 1964-1978, returns to Tehran in February.

1979 July 16 - President Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by Vice President Saddam Hussein. Within days, Saddam executes at least 20 potential rivals, members of the Ba'th Party and military.

1979 September - Military skirmishes and propaganda war increase between Iraq and Iran.

Iran-Iraq War

1980 September 4 - Iran shells Iraqi border towns. On September 17 Iraq abrogates the 1975 treaty with Iran.

1980 September 22 - Iraq attacks Iranian airbases.

1980 September 23 - Iran bombs Iraqi military and economic targets.

1981 June 7 - Israel attacks an Iraqi nuclear research center at Tuwaythah near Baghdad.

1986 March - UN Secretary General reports Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984.

1988 February-September- Iraq military operation "Anfal" results in 50,000-100,000 deaths throughout northern Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons, mass executions and forced relocation to terrorize the area.

1988 March 16 - Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents.

1988 August 20 - The Iran-Iraq war ends in stalemate; an estimated 1 million soldiers are killed in eight years of fighting. A ceasefire comes into effect to be monitored by the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG).

1989 - Iraq sends military hardware to Lebanon in a proxy war with Syria.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/iraq/articles/0221saddam-analysis.html


See the problem is none of this stuff is myterious. It's been openly known. So the cries of "Yeah we know he's a bad guy, but....." ring hollow.

[michael]

The internal feuding in Iraq, acted, as was desired, to keep Iraq a rather small and insignifcant state. The rise of Saddam, and his 'iron fist', was what propelled Iraq forward.

Your question was; why do we tolerate this? It is only at this point that this question can be explored. What else haapened in 1979 besides the rise of Saddam? - the fall of the US backed Shah of Iran. While we discuss dictators, this is one whose name is rarely mentioned, for obvious reasons. A look back at Amnesty Internationals reports on Iran during this period shows a bloody tale every bit as murderous as the future Iraqi leaders.

The issue became- how do we counter revolutionary Iran? The answer was Saddam Hussein. So while your little historical reverie is interesting it does leave out a few rather crucial aspects.

Yes, Iraqi gas use in the 81-84 period and on until the end of the Iran-Iraq war occured. When did Donald Rumsfeld visit? -1983. I'm sure he berated Saddam at length (after shaking his hand).

In 86-87 Iraq counter-attacked after Iran took the Fao peninsula. Money was a problem but the US was happy to extend credit to continue the war. When Iran attacked Kuwait in reponse (wonder why?), the US reflagged Kuwaiti ships, attacked Iranian oil facilities and in 1988 capped all that off by shoting down an Iranian airbus killing all 290 people on board.

Apparantly Saddam's rather gruesome record up to this point gave the US no pause for thought. Human rights groups such as AI and HRW campaigned on behalf of Saddams' victims but as they said "Western Govts, including the US, turned a blind eye..."

Even in 1989, John Kelly (US asistant sec of state) was happy enough to visit Saddam and tell him that the US thought "You are a force for moderation in the region..". Yes, quite.

Then in 1991 April Glasby (US Ambassador) told Saddam in a face-to-face meeting that the US "had no opinion" on the Iraq/ Kuwait border dispute. This was reinforced days later by John Kelly who told the US House of Reps Mid-East Subcommittee that the US was under no obligation to use its forces if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

After the inevitable, the continued concern for the "grinding oppression" is obvous.

UN sanctions were to be lifted upon compliance with the resolutions. The US saw if differently;
"Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone" (Robert Gates- Dep National Security Advisor, 1991,)

I think there is a word for the deliberate harming of civilians to achieve political ends. Can you remember what it is?

Ah, that's right - terrorism!

Any way the poin t is clear, western interests, since 1917, wether Bristish, French or US , have played a cynical game in the middle-east - prioritising access to energy resources, far above any concern over the human rights over the people, or the emergence of true democracy. The situations in Egypt and Jordon ,show that this is not simply about what haapened more than 50 years ago. The same principles are applied now as before. While many like to complain of the lack of freedom in these countires, they are major US allies and recipients of US aid for the very reason that they continue to play their role as US client states that can be relied upon to suppress popular will in their countries. This is required as the emergence of true democratic government would see the rapid end of policies and conditions that are extremely favourable to continued US influence.
One of the most interesting aspects of the recent unrest in both Egypt and Jordon is that instead of protestors directing their anger at the usual targets (Israel or the US) they were, in part, against their own governments. The very fact that this is so uncommon tells us something very important about these US-backed authoritarian regimes - as with Saddam and Iraq the suppresion of domestic population is perfectly acceptable as long as they continue to toe the line.
Saddam shows what happens when you don't follow the script -crimes that went unpunsihed, or even unmentioned at the time they were committed, are now brought up with gasps of horror and are invoked to justify whatever punsihment is to be dished out to those who don't do what they are told.

All in all, nothing new. Past empires, such as Britain have 'been there, done that', sometimes with far more bloodshed.
The question is - is this sudden concern over "grinding oppression" genuine. If so it is welcome, and should be directed towards those areas where such actions continue to be '"tolerated", rather than "demanding apologies" after the fact.

[Communication]

delete

[Mercury]

Michael,

you are quite right in your accusations that US and other western countries collaborate with "pro-western" dictatorial regimes and often turn a blind eye to their misbehaviour. My question is what's the alternative? To collaborate only with arab democracies? Unfortunately I don't know any. Neither, it seems, there is one arab country which is close to becoming one, with or without outside meddling. To ignore them altogether? That sometimes seems tempting, but in my opinion totally impractical. In the recent past it would have meant that all third world would have become USSR proxies. Today it would turn many into safe heaven of terrorism. Tomorrow, after they develop WMD, some would try to blackmail west for money like North Korea is already doing.

There also might be a big difference between the dictators from the point of the locals - the example of the Shah you give is a good one. No doubt, his regime was tyranical and he made many mistakes trying speedily to modernize his country. But all his misdeeds fade in comparison with what ayatollas did. For example, while both regimes persecuted its political opponents, no one would even think in Shah's time to send couples to jail for holding hands or stone people to death for sleeping with the member of other religion.

I also think there should be a time limit on how long the troubles of the developing countries can be blamed on colonialism. Otherwise, all US faults can be blamed on England whose colony it once was. All english faults on french, because of the norman conquest. All french faults on romans who colonized the Gaul. All roman faults would be then definitely responsibility of etruscs who conquered and ruled over them for centuries. I would have continued this thread, but unfortunately historians don't know the origins of etruscs :(

[michael]

Originally posted by Mercury
Michael,

you are quite right in your accusations that US and other western countries collaborate with "pro-western" dictatorial regimes and often turn a blind eye to their misbehaviour. My question is what's the alternative? To collaborate only with arab democracies? Unfortunately I don't know any. Neither, it seems, there is one arab country which is close to becoming one, with or without outside meddling. To ignore them altogether? :(

As for not knowing any arab democracies, they are few and far between. That is, of course, the hoped for outcome.

Democracy is what western powers have laboured to avoid. As the British said in 1917, what is needed is an "Arab facade".

The problem with democracy is that it involves a risk - the risk of an unknown outcome. Perhaps given free will, Arab democracies may not be pro-western, they may not want foreign companies involved in their oil industry, they may choose their own paths, even ones that we do not agree with. All these are outcomes that are highy undesirable - so the cultivation and support of small groups who understand the needs of western governments is necessary.

Unfortunately this seems to be where Iraq is heading. The US is already bringing in its favoured few(such as Ahmed Chalabi), people with no popular base of support in Iraq.

What is surprising though is the speed with which opposition to the US presence has appeared. I thought it may take months, even years, but it has surfaced after only a few days. Exactly what will happen next is unknown, but history gives some indicators, should you wish to look.

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
I think Elke makes a good point ;
"We must stop enabling these savages to do what they will with human beings, who are too weak to defend themselves. This time, we must give a resounding "NO" to dictatorships and evil"

If Elke refers to "this time" as being Iraq and that the 'we' giving a "resounding no" is to the Western complicity in helping to establish and maintain these dictatorships, then I would quite agree.

However, I'm getting a little nervous already. Ahmed Chalabi is flown in on a US military aircraft. A US favoured Shia cleric is murdered in Najaf. Another US favouite pops up now proclaiming himself as mayor of Baghdad.
While a select group are invited to meet in the old airforce base near Nasiriyah, there are 20,000 Shia Muslims protesting in Nasiriyah (reportedly chanting the following "Yes to freedom... Yes to Islam... No to America, No to Saddam," )
The message is that we should note how free the Iraqis are now - they can protest. Before, we know what would have happened to them.
But yesterday in Mosul, Mashaan al-Juburi gave a pro-US speech which aparently lead to some anger in the crowd, ending with US forces shooting dead at least 7 people. The US military says they were fired on, Iraqis interviewed say the US troops fired directly at the crowd as they surged foward towards al-Juburi.


Western imperial history is replete with examples of the establishment of dictatorships, or of favouritism bestowed onto small select groups in exchange for their co-operation and suppression of the local population. Democracy has never been high on the list of priorities, as one the enduring products of the 20thC. carve-up of the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia), shows only too well.

Yes, it is what I was referring to. I think that we have progressed to the point where we have exhausted all our alternatives - and are left with the one thing that can keep us afloat: namely, not enabling the oppressors to continue oppressing, while bad-mouthing the West at the same time. It doesn't mean that Assad's or King Fahd's regimes will meet the same fate in the same manner as Saddam Hussein, but it does mean that more demands will be made on them.

You forgot(?) to mention that an anti-US cleric was also murdered in Najaf. Not to seem sanguine about this situation in Iraq, but it seems to me that it's far too early to gauge exactly what the Iraqis want. The events outlined above, as well as those that have occurred since then, - do not seem particularly unexpected in light of what has just happened in the country, and have a historical and even universal human context.