🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:14:35 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
<dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
>news:do3jkusv6aq27tuauoehnjntbvcjlcglkp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:37:40 -0700, "gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Andrew" <
>> >
>> >> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
>> >> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
>> >> : Vietnam or worse.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
>> >> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
>> >> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
>> >> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
>> >> the 1960's:
>> >
>> >Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be
>another
>> >Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
>> >another...another....IRAQ!
>> >
>> >Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not the
>same
>> >kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open terrain
>and
>> >lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.
>> >
>> >-gatt
>> >
>> I'd double-check that "lack of," gatt.  My broad impression is that a
>> traditional, non-populist heirarchy exists in the Middle East, and you
>> can't really plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq without upsetting
>> this order and knocking over the beehive.
>
>Except that Iraq is already one of the few secular governments in the
>region. I don't know what tribal feuds exist other than the Kurds. This
>isn't to say tribal feuding won't start up - look at what happened in the
>Soviet Union's western satellite countries when they weren't there to put
>down unrest.
>
>
>>
>> The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
>> of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
>> that has at least some regional buy-in.
>
>I expect you are right. You have the Kurds and Turkey wanting a piece of
>Iraq, Iran and the Shiites wanting something on their side, and the Saudis
>wanting land. oil, and stability. My guess is that if the Saudis back us
>then Iraq will end up Saudi run.

The broad story is that Saddam, like the rulers of Saudi Arabia and
all (I think) other countries on the Arabian Peninsula, is a Sunni
Muslim.  But Sunnis are a minority throughout the Arab world.

If the U.S.occupies Iraq and puts its support behind a new republic,
its form will inevitably have to align political power with the
religious and ethnic make-up of the country.  That means a Shiite-led
government.  This would be deeply threatening to Saudi Arabia and
other Arab countries, just as the Iranian Shiite revolution was, but
even more so because Iraq, unlike Iran, is an Arab country.

This calculation is why George H.W. Bush did not support the popular
uprising that nearly toppled Saddam in the wake of the Gulf War.  He
would have lost the support of Arab leaders had he done so, and he
might have touched off a lot of ugly political violence across the
region.

Instead, Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqi MILITARY to depose Saddam, and
hoped it would happen.  He wanted a more agreeable and less ambitious
Iraqi dictator, not a popular revolution to liberate Iraq.  His
position reflected a cold but sensible assessment of how the U.S. must
budget its power and influence in a fucked-up part of the world.

So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.

Charlie

Any factual corrections welcome.