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: stockman_scott who wrote (50143)	10/9/2002 12:04:08 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Scot actually posted an interesting article. But as America moves closer to war with Iraq, the policy debates have focused on procedural issues, not on the internal conditions in Iraq that will determine the likelihood of a peaceful, democratic state after Hussein's departure. The loud public debate about the desirability of taking down the regime with or without international sanction has certainly overshadowed the other concerns. Iraqis, monitored and oppressed since 1958... The article outlines how Iraqis were terrorized, murdered, exiled, etc. Basically, now they are getting an institutionalized version of the same on a continuous basis. ...have lost faith in the political system and turned inward to the safe harbor of tribalism and religious and ethnic factionalism. There is no political system except the Baathist party and that is the most retrograde and primitive and no place for an ordinary citizen. But have the tribe, ethnic and religious factionalism been a safe harbour? From what we know, it hasn't, really. Hussein's security services still get at people. No doubt sometimes folk may have a relative or associate in the government who may shield them from the some aspect of the oppression but this influence isn't reliable. In some cases the tribal leadership has taken on the job of repression as a sort of sub-contractor to the regime. There isn't necessarily a lot of faith in the tribal leadership and there will be less after the government goes down and the citizens raid the police files.... Every community -- Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites -- fends for itself and has built an "iron wall" to shield its members. But the iron wall doesn't really exist. Saddam gets at people where ever his writ still carries. Civil society has been crushed and the middle class has been decimated, thanks mainly to the U.N.-led sanctions since 1991. There is no doubt the middle class has been injured but is this so much due to sanctions, or the outrageous inflation the government has created? There is a middle class in Iraq - being middle class is a matter of what one does, not how wealthy someone might be - under better circumstances they will flourish and many exiled middle class folk might return. The building blocks and institutions necessary for a functioning polity, let alone a democracy, do not exist. The country runs now, however badly and disfunctionally. There are economic and civil institutions. There is a civil service both inside Hussein's part of the country and the rest. There is an army much of it badly abused and neglected by the governmment. These things will still exist after his departure. The country could still be administered. The recent reports we've read from western reporters who have been allowed to travel in Hussein's Iraq carry an overwhelming impression that the citizens are worn out by fear of the government, poverty, injustice. In this is an opportunity for democracy - it's reasonable, don't have to fear it, leads to prosperity and justice. Why should they not embrace it? The tragedy of Iraqi politics, and Arab politics in general, is that both the ruling elite and the dominant opposition are anti-liberal and anti-democratic. The opposition in the North is liberal and somewhat democratic. The shiites in the South don't seem to embrace the mullocracy. So which of the dominant opposition are anti-liberal and anti-democratic? I'm sure there are a number of would-be replacements for Saddam, but after him, we can't assume the country would be willing to embrace another like him. Society is deeply scarred and its foundations of trust are frayed to the breaking point. Subversion and plotting have replaced natural political processes as the means to obtain power. True. But so what? Have to start changing the place, however awful it might be. If the United States attacks Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime probably will crumble much faster than expected. He has alienated most social groups, including important elements within his own Takriti clan. I agree. But there will likely be resistance from the security forces, the Republican Guards and some Sunni tribes. These forces will fight because their very survival is at stake -- unless the Bush administration provides them with credible assurances of safety. In many cases they will fight hard to escape well deserved justice or equally likely, will try to escape the country. Many of the remainder might well give themselves up to US folk rather than Iraqi. Something might be swung but they would have to leave the country if they were so compromised by association with Baath and the government, but it has to be faced, there are folk there who need shooting. The United States should have no illusion about either the costs of urban warfare, particularly on Iraqi civilians, or the herculean task of reconstructing a post-Hussein Iraq. A likely scenario is that a U.S. military invasion would result in a civilian massacre. Tribal revenge would probably be exacted, complicating the process of reconciliation and healing. A slaughter in Baghdad would surely deepen mistrust between the ruling Sunni community on the one hand and the Shiites and Kurds on the other. A civilian massacre as scores are settled. This could happen either if the US invades or if the government is taken down by native opposition. But it's not a certainty such a thing will happen. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, is the usual procedure. There is enough income and technical expertise in the country and its exile community that rebuilding the physical infra-structure shouldn't take a very long time. The political infrastucture is another matter. In his speech to the UN, Bush pledged the US would bring democracy to the middle east. The audience present in that chamber are waiting to see if he's going to start delivering. Of course the US will be in Iraq for a long while guaranteeing the integrity of its government and borders. If it doesn't stay, then we'll know the speech was only chaff and bombast.