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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (79078)	3/2/2003 9:12:08 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Freedom for Araby? By Amir Taheri Very interesting article, Jacob. Do you know anything about the author other than the short blurb at the end?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (79078)	3/4/2003 1:55:21 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This article also by Taheri is good. benadorassociates.com Iraq Civil War? by Amir Taheri New York Post March 2, 2003 AS if it didn't have enough trouble with some allies about whether or not to take action against Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is becoming involved in a tussle with the Iraqi opposition on what should happen after the war. The administration is strongly considering the idea of U.S. military rule - with the State Department and CIA strongly in favor. But in public and private conversation, the Iraqi opposition has objected loudly: It sees this as a plan to keep the Ba'athist regime in place (minus a few top leaders, notably President Saddam Hussein). To show their pique, Iraqi opposition leaders have multiplied contacts with Iran, preach a program of massive "de-Ba'athification" and threaten to announce a provisional government the moment that Saddam's army surrenders to the U.S.-led coalition. The United States has said it would not recognize such a government. Iran has hinted that it might. The quiet alliance formed between America and Iran, symbolized by their sponsorship of the opposition conference in London last December, is under strain. Imagine the United States installing a military ruler in Baghdad while the Iraqi opposition announces a provisional government in Erbil. Iran could recognize that government, thus emerging as the ally of the Iraqi people against foreign, i.e. American and Turkish, occupation. The Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition need to take a deep breath and ponder the consequences. Unless they work together, they could lead Iraq into a tragic mess. American military rule would mean a disappearance of the Iraqi state, at least for a while. That could encourage fissiparous forces, including ethnic groups, tribes and even criminal gangs, to seize control of as much territory as they can, making the re-emergence of a central government that much more problematic. And if Turkish troops are allowed to occupy part of Iraq, be sure that Iran would react by massively arming its own clients among Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. The United States could thus find itself with no local allies except the remnants of the Ba'athist regime and security services, based on a few clans in Takrit and its environs. If that is the ideal, why not keep Saddam, as the French suggest? (Saddam has told the French that he is ready to do whatever Washington wants in exchange for written guarantees that nothing will be done to topple him.) For the past 30 years, the Iraqi people have been fighting for liberation, not for an American military occupation. Liberation from Saddamist rule should be seen as a partnership between the Iraqi people and allies led by the United States. The Iraqi people started to fight the regime long before America became interested in Iraq, and in periods when Washington backed Saddam. They have made greater sacrifices than the United States could make in liberating Iraq. By most estimates, more than 100,000 opposition members and leaders have been executed in Iraq since 1968. Many more have died in civil wars and "ethnic cleansing" operations conducted by the regime. Some 4 million Iraqis have been driven into exile, while over a million others suffered prison terms of varying lengths during the past 30 years. Should all that "investment by suffering" produce nothing but American military rule backed by the existing Ba'athist repressive machine? It is not too late for the Bush administration to abandon the idea of direct military rule. Once Saddam's forces have surrendered, the United States must recognize the new Iraqi provisional government, which should be announced at the same time and not earlier. The provisional government would then sign accords under which the U.S.-led forces would be invited to stay in Iraq at its discretion and for the performance of precise tasks. Thus, legally speaking, Iraq would not become occupied territory but host to an allied force for a fixed period. The provisional government would then fulfill Iraq's obligations under the 18 U.N. resolutions, preparing the way for a lifting of the sanctions. The CIA and State Department should read Iraq's history: They'd realize that the British, who created the modern Iraqi state, did not try to rule it directly but depended on the local elites for the purpose. There are also things that the Iraqi opposition should do if we are not going to have a post-war tragedy in Iraq. The opposition's call for "massive de-Ba'athification," on the same pattern as de-Nazification in Germany after Hitler, is disingenuous to say the least. Almost a third of the opposition's 65-man council are dissident Ba'athists, including some former members of Saddam's intelligence services. If those guys could change their minds, why shouldn't present-day Ba'athists also be able to reform once the tyrant is deposed? The Ba'ath Party in Iraq is not like the Nazi Party in Germany. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Ba'athists are individuals who joined the party to protect their careers and businesses or to secure a share of the favors that such regimes distribute. Thus the opposition should not preach a witch-hunt. It should propose the creation of a truth and reconciliation committee to heal Iraq's internal wounds, rather than keep twisting the knife in them. President Bush has promised to help Iraq become a model of democracy. He should, therefore, veto the CIA-State Department plan and let Iraqis form a government that reflects the nation's ethnic, religious and political diversity. The United States would thus gain a potentially powerful ally in the Middle East rather than turning a whole nation into another enemy.