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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (14656)	4/14/2004 3:11:42 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Chuck, it's a long article. The first part takes the position that the current Iraqi uprisings are, in the words of the Administration, "the actions of those who are fighting against the freedom of Iraqis." The idea seems to be that these insurgents can amass resistance against the Americans but could not do so once there has been a turnover of "power" to the Iraqis. I don't think so. I think two things are going on. One is that there is a huge amount of seething resentment among the Iraqis because of the fact of occupation and because of the heavy handed and arrogant use of military power in Iraq. The conditions in Iraq are harsh and the Iraqis blame the Americans for the lack of jobs, security, and any say in the conduct of their everyday lives. They see Americans with guns and they see women and children killed in the skirmishes that involve our troops. They don't trust the Americans, or their motives, or their techniques and the fact that any American with a gun can take them away and imprison them on a whim galls them. That creates on volatile and explosive situation that lends itself to an eruption of violence. That's an emotional rather than a rational basis for the violence. With regard to the second basis I see for the violence, it has less to do with a fear of "freedom" than it does with a fear of the American view of what a post-turnover should look like. I believe the Shi'a see the American plan for a turnover as an attempt to create a puppet government that limits the power of the majority Shi'a. They see the American insistence upon Western values in the "interim" constitution. They see the American insistence upon a Kurdish "veto power" over the actions of the majority. Finally they see that the interim government will not be created by popular will but rather by the will of the Americans. For the reasons given in the article, they might rather make their stand now. It gives them the "evil power" incitement factor that will mobilize almost all Iraqis and it allows them to wield a huge amount more influence in modifying the interim steps to Iraqi power as well as the procedural steps that will lead to a more permanent Iraqi ruling system. In the end what we want is the right to have our military based in Iraq and a central role in an Iraqi government that leaves the governing power reliant on our might. That means that we cannot tolerate an Islamic based government because that government does NOT need American power to stay in control. What the Iraqis want is the freedom to choose any government and probably one that is a hybrid Islamic/popular vote government. When freedom runs up against faith in the Arab world, faith has always won. That's why we are looking at failure as an option or a long and expensive war that will delay the option of failure. As far as the argument that these people manipulate the "peace process" and see compromise as weakness; of course they do.