From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 22:59:09 MST
Damien writes
> Mike Butler quoted an interesting piece by Nick Cohen from the Guardian
> supporting an Iraq invasion, which includes this pointer:
>
> < Makiya, Salih and their comrades are fighting the political
> battle of their lives against those 'Anglo-American audiences' in the
> powerhouses of London and Washington who oppose a democratic settlement.
> [Makiya's] piece in turn is well worth reading, and extremely disturbing:
>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896611,00.html
>
> How a US blueprint for post-Saddam government quashed the hopes of
> democratic Iraqis.
>
> Kanan Makiya - Sunday February 16, 2003 - The Observer
>
> The United States is on the verge of committing itself to a post-Saddam plan
> for a military government in Baghdad with Americans appointed to head Iraqi
> ministries, and American soldiers to patrol the streets of Iraqi cities.
>
> The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a
> United States-led delegation, further envisages the appointment by the US of
> an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the
> Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government.
Now this is a nice problem, doubtlessly polarized also, but
one that should have reduced commitment to answers. Should
the West, after a military victory in Iraq, defer to Arabic
culture in the world and to the local states of the region,
or should it defy them and allow indigenous democratic forces,
(with whom everyone one here has the most sympathy) to rule?
I would be willing to bet that (on the American side) Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell have received many analyses on
this question, which is new to me at least. They'll most
certainly want to do what is best for the U.S. In particular,
for U.S. Republicans. (Tony Blair's party will almost
certainly want what is best for the U.K., namely what is
best for Labor in the U.K.) Such is democracy.
The BEST understanding I am able to recall ever having had
on the question "Why did the coalition forces stop the first
time?" is that they had promised Saudi Arabia and other Arab
nations that Saddam would be driven off but not toppled.
(Also, they felt confident that such a reverse would cause
him to lose power in Iraq from within.)
So what if the *only* way that is politically feasible to
replace Hussein is to do so with an Arab autocrat acceptable
to the non-democratic forces in the region? What a dilemma.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 22:57:12 MST