🚀 go-pugleaf

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vbbjku0o04cg328renn59cgv7ie33n0pl2@4ax.com...
> 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.

After the Gulf War I caught hell from a couple friends in the military for
suggesting that we were afraid of what Iran would do if we destabilized the
region by invading Iraq. They thought Bush was a pussy and should hve gone
in. Not that I support Bush (either) in any way - it's just great to be
right every once in a while.

>
> 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.

It sometimes seems that, lacking a cold war, these old cold war mentality
beaurocrats in the Bush administration are determined to make a new one
using terrorists, Muslims, oil, and the middle east.



>
> Charlie
>
> Any factual corrections welcome.

None needed - and thanks for the info.