Hi Sig; Re: "I read thru most of the discussions you posted about France. Difficult to relate those to Iraq at this moment."
France had a lot of experience in the Arab lands, far more than we did, and their experience was generally bad. In addition to losing the 26,000 soldiers KIA in Algeria, they also lost 16,000 or 25,000 (dependening on sources) in four 20th century wars in Morocco, got kicked out of Tunisia at the same time as the Algerian conflict and had unpleasant experiences with rebellion in Syria in the 1920s. The Algerian war was a part of that spectrum of conflict.
There are various theories as to how the US could pull a "win" out of Iraq. One of those theories is that by being a bit "rougher" with the Baathists, we could eliminate the problem and get the Iraqis to kneel (or at least allow us to pump their oil for them). The experience of the French with the Algerians is evidence that this sort of occupation doesn't work any better than the soft sort.
Re: "Saddam was the murderer and torturer in his own country ..."
Saddam is gone now, but the war grinds on. In fact, any reason that the Iraqis had for putting up with us because of the fear that Saddam would be back has been alleviated. Besides, the evidence is clear that Saddam's capture has not solved any of our problems in Iraq. If anything, the existence of Saddam just makes our problem in Iraq WORSE than France's problem in Algeria, not better.
Re: "A difference is that France tried to hold its (self-determined) empire together by force,against the wishes of Algerians."
This is a difference in how the US sees itself in Iraq and how the French saw themselves in Algeria. Unfortunately, it is not a significant difference in how the Algerians saw the French in Algeria and the Iraqis see the US in Iraq.
Re: "Iraq is not a part of the US empire, we want to leave as soon as possible and give the Iraqis a chance to run their own country, which is something never offered to the Algerians."
By the time the Algerian situation had spun as far out of control as the Iraq situation now is, the French were negotiating an opportunity for the Algerians to "run their own country". The Algerians kept shooting at the French for the same reason that the Iraqis are still and will continue to shoot at us. It is not for the French to give freedom to the Algerians any more than it is for the US to give freedom to the Iraqis. Freedom is something you give yourself. Here's more info on that war:
...
In September 1959, de Gaulle dramatically reversed his stand on Algeria and uttered the words "self-determination" in a speech. Claiming that de Gaulle had betrayed them, the colons, with backing by elements of the French army, staged insurrections in January 1960 and April 1961. De Gaulle was now prepared to abandon the colons, the group that no previous French government could have written off. Talks with the FLN reopened at Evian in May 1961; after several false starts, the French government decreed that a cease-fire would take effect on March 19, 1962. ... On July 1, 1962, some 6 million of a total Algerian electorate of 6.5 million cast their ballots in the referendum on independence. The vote was nearly unanimous. De Gaulle pronounced Algeria an independent country on July 3.
...
onwar.com
Re: "So what is the purpose of an organized resistance in Iraq, since we are leaving anyway?"
I doubt that many people in Iraq really believe that the US will leave Iraq without being forced out. The most widespread belief is that we are there to steal their oil and won't leave until it runs out. That the Iraqis would believe this is quite understandable, since it's so widely rumored even in our own country that the administration has to explicitly deny it:
...
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has denied that the US is planning long-term military involvement in Iraq, including bases. His comments follow a report in the New York Times newspaper, which said a number of senior officials had confirmed the plans.
...
news.bbc.co.uk
In any case, the facts on the ground are that we had apparently originally intended on leaving just 30,000 troops in Iraq by July or so, but here it is, January and there are still well over 100,000 there.
Re: "IMO it would be a ego trip by Saddam supporters who seek credit for driving the infidels ( thats us) out of the country."
Let's assume you're right. All you're doing is listing another useless reason (to prevent Saddam supporters from being proud of themselves) for our troops to remain sitting around as targets in Iraq. Our troops are dying. Why do you care about the egos of Saddam supporters?
Re: "Since the majority of Iraqis want us to hang around until they are better organized, their new police and military are going to give the revolutionaries a hard time- leaving them with no time to get organized or heavily armed."
Today I read that we killed another two Iraqi policemen. Are you really sure that the Iraqi policemen are on our side? As time goes on, and the situation in Iraq fails to improve, in terms of gasoline and electricity, food and jobs, fewer and fewer Iraqis will want us to hang around. In other words, the average Iraqi's desire to have us around is a wasting asset. As it is, they're already causing us unacceptable casualties, and we've been there less than a year.
Re: "But things could get much more interesting when the new Iraqi government takes over, and our forces recede into the background a bit."
The administration and their ilk have been claiming that things are about to turn the corner in Iraq every since Bush declared victory last May. It's not anymore realistic now than it was in July.
Re: "It will be Iraqi vs dissident Iraqi ..."
I agree that this is likely, but the simple fact is that this sort of thing will increase our casualties, not decrease them. We had that sort of thing going on in Vietnam, for that matter, and while the Vietnamese shot the crap out of each other, they did save enough bullets for 58,000 of our guys. And, for that matter, the French had the same "advantage" in Algeria.
-- Carl
P.S. Here you are just six months ago crowing about the discovery of WMDs in Iraq, a discovery that turned out to be a fermentation truck for artillery balloons. Care to clarify your comment on the intelligence of those Bush administration officials? Or do you still think they were idiots for believing that WMDs would be found? And if so, do you believe that they're geniuses for telling the American public that the situation in Iraq is about to get better?
Sig, to Bilow, June 8, 2003
Have a bad morning - unless of course, these two people have no proof whatsoever and are merely lying again so they will be kicked out of Government in disgrace. It is possible ,of course, (though remotely) that they are just plain stupid and do not have have your high level connections or inside information on which you base your own contentions..
:
POWELL: MOBILE LABS FOUND IN IRAQ ARE BIOLOGICAL
POWELL: REMAINS CERTAIN IRAQ HAS WMDS
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: U.S. WILL FIND WMD'S IN IRAQ
Sig #reply-19012962
The "just plain stupid" phrase expressed my opinion of them exactly. I'm still waiting for them to be "kicked out of government in disgrace". |
