What I was talking about, with the war.
Feb. 18th, 2003 12:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdThe administration's plan is for a two year occupation.
That's not enough time to even pretend to set up a functioning democracy in this situation.
It is, however, plenty of time to set up a replacement authoritarian government which will make promises about liberalisation that they don't particuarly intend to keep.
That, and there's this story, which I haven't seen so far in the American media:
Kurdish leaders enraged by 'undemocratic' American plan to occupy Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, northern Iraq
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
17 February 2003
The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.
The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.
The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers.
It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad.
"Conquerors always call themselves liberators," said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr Bush's speech last week in which he said US troops were going to liberate Iraq.
Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq. "It is very disappointing," he said. "In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers."
Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of pressure from regional powers, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
That's not enough time to even pretend to set up a functioning democracy in this situation.
It is, however, plenty of time to set up a replacement authoritarian government which will make promises about liberalisation that they don't particuarly intend to keep.
That, and there's this story, which I haven't seen so far in the American media:
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, northern Iraq
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
17 February 2003
The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.
The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.
The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers.
It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad.
"Conquerors always call themselves liberators," said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr Bush's speech last week in which he said US troops were going to liberate Iraq.
Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq. "It is very disappointing," he said. "In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers."
Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of pressure from regional powers, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
color me surprised
Date: 2003-02-18 04:00 pm (UTC)Any regime that ends up giving the Shiites in Basra & vicinity significant political power will be unacceptable to the Saudis (i.e., the royal family --- bin Laden & friends would probably love it), the Kuwaitis, and it probably wouldn't be terribly good for us, either.
This is the exact same problem we had back in '91 when Bush Sr. told everybody to rise up against Saddam; if they'd actually won, much shit would have hit the fan. In my more cynical moods, I imagine that this is the real reason that an assassination team didn't put a bullet in Saddam's head ten years ago.
The fundamental problem is that Iraq is an artificial country. Keeping something like that together without some kind of asshole dictator/central-authority entails having had a few generations of enforced peaceful living side by side so that the old generations with all of the grudges have time to die off. (hint: Yugoslavia had 40 years and it wasn't enough.)