where are the Iraqis in all of this? Why are they not fighting for their freedom?
That's easy to say from here to people who went through such a reign of terror, while the possibility still exists (at least in their minds) that it can return. I think we need to get Saddam, and then, I think Iraqis will more actively participate.
I think Saddam has little to do with it now.......that's our way of explaining their lack of commitment. After the killing of the Hussein bros, Iraqis know that Saddam isn't coming back.....that he's lost his base. And yet, they do nothing.
I firmly believe Iraqis don't 'own' this revolution and are acting accordingly.
Why? Because they don't 'own' it. Its not their revolution...its Bush's. Its not their self determination that is doing the trick, its Bush's. Its not their fighting that's winning the battle, its Bush's soldiers.
I would differ on the Kurds, because they are very much part of it. Shiites are passive, probably because they remember vividly how we betrayed them in the early 90s. Sunnis, a good percentage of them, were beneficiaries of Saddam.
I agree with you re. the Kurds.......but again the big difference between the Kurds, and the Shiites and the Sunnis is self determination. The Kurds have been fighting the good fight against Turkey and Saddam for years now. They are committed to their freedom. Under Saddam, the Shiites and Sunnis have been mostly passive.
BTW I don't think the Sunnis are as big on Saddam as it is often said. True, Saddam was a Sunni but he couldn't possibly benefit the entire Sunni population plus many Sunnis suffered as well under his tyranny. I think he has more support in Sunni territory but it was a Sunni who gave away the hiding place of the Hussein bros.
But as far as this being Bushes revolution, this is not the first time we liberated a country, which didn't do a great deal to help. France, Netherlands, Belgium etc. are good examples. Was it a bad idea to liberate them, since they put up so little resistance during WW2? Does Netherlands, Belgium, Holland suffer a lack of self determination because of the US/UK liberating them without their help?
France, Netherlands and Belgium had already been free nations with democracies in places centuries before Hitler invaded them. In the case of France, it went through its own period of self determination when it chopped off M. Antoinette's head. The Netherlands and Belgium experienced less violent periods of self determination and revolution. Iraq has experienced none of that as of yet.
They were independent as a totalitarian state over two millennium ago and since then have been occupied by one invader after another. Finally, in the '30s, they became an independent nation ruled by a monarch. In 1958, the monarch was overthrown in a military coup and since then, Iraq has had a series of coupes and a succession of dictators ending with Saddam. Never once did the people rise up and demand democracy as has happened in so many other countries of the world. That would be the self determination discussed by De Genova. To date, its not been very evident in Iraq's history.
But anyway, I asked about de Genova's route to self determination of Iraq. Do you know his answer?
See above.
ted |
