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: Ilaine who wrote (91271)	4/8/2003 3:50:44 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The drumbeat is in full roll by those with an interest in who runs Iraq. Here is a clip from Frum today. The Iraqi They Hate It's customary to preface antiwar comments with a perfunctory condemnation of Saddam: "Nobody opposes the Saddam Hussein regime more than I do, but ..." The people who can't seem to work up much of a head of steam against Saddam do, however, get lathered up at the mention of the name of Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress. The New York Times this morning condemns him in an editorial--while a nearby oped by a professor at Georgetown urges the United States to accept as the legitimate government of Iraq whichever colonel ends the war in control of Iraq's surviving armed forces: Mr. Chalabi, who has not lived in Iraq for any length of time since 1958, cannot credibly surrender. Unless Saddam Hussein surrenders--and that is highly unlikely--an Iraqi who has been in the country for much of his regime needs to be willing to sue for peace with the United States. ... Who runs postwar Iraq will depend in large part on who surrenders to the United States. The most likely leaders of postwar Iraq are in Iraq today. The intensity of the animosity to Mr. Chalabi defies rational understanding. He's detested by the CIA for being too independent--and by Western enthusiasts for militant Arab nationalism because he is not independent enough. He's accused of authoritarianism in his management of the INC, and then mistrusted by the State Department because of his undue interest in Iraqi democracy. The Saudis hate him because he?s a Shi?ite by background; the Middle Eastern studies types in this country despise him because he is a tolerant secularist. He?s variously called a tool of the Iranians--of the oil companies--and of course of the Zionist lobby. What Chalabi is in fact is an Iraqi patriot who wants to do his utmost to establish the rule of law, representative institutions, freedom of religion, and a market economy in his country. Americans of all points of view--from the Defense Department to the faculty lounges of Georgetown University--all agree that the West should not impose a president on Iraq. But surely the West ought also not to ban any democratic person from becoming president? Yet to listen to his critics in the academy and the bureaucracy, a Chalabi government would be much more unacceptable than a neo-Baathist strongman. nationalreview.com