Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43135)	9/10/2002 11:09:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An American occupation of Iraq would affirm one of the central Islamist beliefs: that the US is out to occupy (and presumably de-Islamify) the ME That's not how I would put their belief; rather, we are humiliating them by being more successful and powerful than they are. The Quran says that Islamic nations will be the most powerful. Our success is contrary to the will of Allah. When the Russians set themselves up as an occupier and a sponsor of a Government, they open the door to their own defeat. I think the Islamists believe that they can beat us if they can drag us into that role. They might, unfortunately, be right. For sure, the best hope for the Islamists is the Hizbullah strategy, which is so influential precisely because it is associated with victory in Lebanon. But we don't want to occupy and colonize Iraq and everybody knows it. I don't think the Islamists will make much headway with the Iraqis, who will be happy to get rid of Saddam. So who is going to be fighting us in this proposed war of attrition? imported Al Qaeda guys? Hizbullah? Despite all the talk going around, I've seen no convincing ideas on how this is to be done. Have you? Well, our guys seem to be talking very seriously indeed with the Kurds (who have patched their differences) and the INC (who seem genuinely attached to the idea of democracy). I would bet that we will install some sort of federated democratic government. I hope the Bush adminstration sticks around to do that. The Islamists have in many Arab countries been the only opposition choice until now. David Warren explains the goals of the war: My own belief is that President Bush has begun the ambitious process of reorienting U.S. policy, away from these "moderate" Arab regimes that proved only superficially useful in the past (chiefly as bulwarks against Soviet influence in conditions that ended with the Cold War). It will not be easy either to disengage from past treaties and arrangements, nor re-engage with new commitments to democratic opposition forces. It cannot be done all at once, with so many other U.S. priorities. There is no sane alternative to gradualism: for it makes no sense to multiply one's enemies in a moment when wars must be fought. But a start has already been attempted, in making U.S. aid conditional upon political reform, from Uzbekistan to Egypt. And five years from now I would expect the U.S. will no longer have any autocrats or dictators for allies in the region -- if they have any allies at all. They will have thrown in their lot as they have with Israel -- behind what I hope may be budding democracies in Syria, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere. To create even one reasonably successful democratic constitutional order in the region, for instance in Iraq, would make a huge difference in Arab and Muslim perceptions of what is, and what is not, possible. Hence the need to pull all the stops, to rebuild Iraq after the regime of Saddam Hussein has been destroyed. For, contrary to the most pessimistic assessments, we will be able to know when the war against terrorism has been won. It will be when we see a phenomenon sweeping the Middle East, equivalent to what swept Central and Eastern Europe in the years 1989-91. (Though we may yet see the contrary in the meantime -- Islamists overthrowing governments in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.) We are dealing with an enemy that is defeatable, but which is not small. And we are dealing with entrenched attitudes that penetrate far more deeply into Muslim society than into the societies that were freed in Central and Eastern Europe. There was in these latter, after all, no one left who genuinely believed in Communism. In the Islamic world there are great masses of people who genuinely believe in the most bellicose interpretation of the old Muslim concept of "jihad" or holy war. Dead or alive, Osama bin Laden does command armies of millions of sympathizers, people living an apocalyptic fantasy. But we have faced that kind of thing before. The Nazis were living an apocalyptic fantasy; so were the fascists of Mussolini's Italy, and the emperor-cultists of Tojo's Japan. In many ways, the antebellum U.S. South once fell into such a collective fantasy, and behaved aggressively in a like way. Such enemies were never going to be won over by reason or negotiation, and every proposal for appeasement strengthened their hand. One thing and one thing only can rescue the Islamists from their fantasy world -- and that is total, ignominious defeat. But so long as there is a single jurisdiction, anywhere on the planet, where they are free to hide, plot, and dream, the war isn't over. Iraq is just the start. That is the hard fact of life. Only the infantile narcissism in so much of the post-modern West prevents us from seeing it plain. The enemy we confront is defeatable, though it may be a hard and bitter fight.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43135)	9/10/2002 11:13:35 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

we will just have to create a success story in Iraq Despite all the talk going around, I've seen no convincing ideas on how this is to be done. Have you? Yes. I think the success of the UN-protected areas in northern Iraq is a model for the rest of Iraq. The oil-for-food program works because the money is actually used to buy food, medicine and necessities for the people. The people in that area have a much higher literacy rate, much lower infant mortality rate, all the things you would expect in a viable economy. The Iraqi people themselves are fairly advanced. There's no reason the rest of them can't be as great a success as the ones in Northern Iraq. I am not a fan of the sanctions. I think the people in Iraq should be liberated.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43135)	9/11/2002 4:53:39 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

we will just have to create a success story in Iraq Despite all the talk going around, I've seen no convincing ideas on how this is to be done. Have you? They already have fake elections and a fake parliament. They have a government and civil service. So the simple thing would be to conquer the country, eliminate Hussein, the Baath party, and the secret police. Then hold municipal elections as soon as possible, administer the country while it organizes some real political parties, assembles an honest, or nearby honest, voters' roll and have an election. Iraqis are ordinarily intelligent folk. They know what they have now is fake. What makes you think they can't see what's real? And what's possible? They have high levels of literacy and a repressed middle class dying to be free. Most of the country has no big ideological axes to grind (its fascism would disappear with elimination of Saddam and Baath) -it's secular, and sort of socialist but not in a big way because the money ran out years ago. Much of the country's poverty is the result of Saddam stealing a vast amount of cash flow in addition to taxation. Get rid of the cash flow theft and there's money for private investment The real problem for Iraq, post Saddam, is no political institutions at the level of citizens so they'd need some coaching. The northern bunch on the other hand, have been trying democracy for a few years and the exiles have had exposure to it so there would be some coaches available. I expect the Turks would help out with this. It wouldn't be easy, and would be a bit messy, but a damn sight easier than democratizing Afghanistan.