Arab/Muslim hypocricy.

Creating rage and resentment towards the US and Israel diverts attention from the fact that most of these countries are in awful shape and being robbed blind by repressive kleptocrats.

As long as they can channel the hatred, it works to thier advantage.

 

Nah, this is just like the Bushies and their amen corner in the media selling the "it's all France's fault" for the failure of our diplomacy. There's no risk involved.

 

General Grant strikes another decisive blow....

 

I think that, while they are certainly upset, most middle eastern people still think "it can't happen here" because Iraq is unique (non-theocracy, object of preoccupation of the US since the Gulf War, so on). Because of that, they are unwilling to risk their property and lives in any sort of serious action. If the US moves into Syria or Iran, or takes over Saudi Arabia after their upcoming civil war, then this view will probably change.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again: Colonialism fucks with political culture. This ain't Germany and it ain't Japan. The Bush team will have its hands very full of a lot of gaza-style craziness and a civil war a few months after the Hussein regime is "officially" eradicated.

 

See, that's the bitch of having a monarchy. It doesn't matter how many petitions you sign, or how many votes you cast. If the king isn't representing you as well as you would hope, tough titties. The king is all powerful and you can't touch him...I want to be a king.

 

Well, ladies and gentlemen, HERE's the nub.

If you're right, and this DOES happen, then the Wolfowitz/Cheyney/Perle doctrine will have failed in its first, and ONLY, test.

But what if it works?? What if we get, post Saddam,

--a relatively stable central and progressive government??
--no Kurdish and Shia separatist actions??

Then what??

Right now, the Arab man on the street sees us as anti-Islam invaders and colonialists (and Zionists, too). They simply don't believe our motives are anything but the most heinous and reprehensible.

But what if we get in, hang around for a while -- say a year -- and then get out (while keeping some nice strategic western desert airbases)?

By the way, your prediction, which may turn out to be quite correct, is, when you cut away all the crap, THE darkest and THE most cynical view. You view consigns the Iraqi people to the totalitarian despotism of Saddam if we do nothing, or the chaos of factional conflict if do what we are doing.

It is also arguably, on one level, quite patronizing -- implicitly stating, what others have stated explicity, that Arab states don't have a history of progressive or democratic governments, and there's no way one can start now. It'll either be a puppet USA regime, or a bunch of bloodthirsty belligerent factions.

So, let us all file away cossack's post here, and revisit this in a year. Let's see if he's right.

And let's all hope that he's not.

 

Yeah but you forgot Karl that if it was Clinton the rest of the pinkos would be thinking positively on this one, and perhaps even giving the benefit of the doubt and waiting until AFTER it's over to make their final judgements.

But then again if I'm a policeman busting a drug house and an innocent civilian gets hurt then I'm a bad guy for trying to take out a drug lord by most of these guys' logic....

 

The last queen of Jordon (Queen Noor nee Lisa Halaby) is/was an American, which can't help his position any...

 

Um, the whole point is that Clinton would never be doing this. If your uncle had tits he'd be you're aunt.

 

who funds these dictators and royals??? um..yeah the US!!!

 

I realize this. I mean, Clinton would never do anything that everyone(UN) didn't agree with, even when it's the right thing........

 

There's plenty of monarchies that don't work that way.

 

Some, but not the one we're talking about.
And most monarchies, if they're true monarchies, work like that. Britain doesn't have a monarchial system anymore and hasen't since the parliment was formed. Other countries that have royal leadership are usually only there for decoration and tradition. The very few surviving and active monarchies in this world have learned from modern day politics how to successfully run their countries. So are there any true monarchies left in the world? Maybe. You say monarchy I say tomato.

 

That will be news to QEII,

it is a monarchy, a "constitutional monarchy". A strange name given that we don't have a written consitution.

 

Clinton would only fight Iraq for a good reason. Like, trying to cover a BJ...

 

But the power resides in the Prime Minister and the Parliment, not the Queen. She is a figurehead of her country, but not the leader as in a true monarchy.

 

That is practically true, but in theory the monarch still has a significant amount of power. Such that there are fears in some quarters about how Prince Charles would conduct himself as the monarch, and the effect this would have. The present monarch is seen as merely a figurehead mainly because she refrains from getting involved politically, rather than because of a complete lack of systematic power.

 

Is that what you think is the problem here, that there's not unanimous approval? (What else could you mean by "everyone didn't agree with"?)

If you're gonna knock down a straw man, can you at least build a straw man that's recognizable?

 

This is well put, Karl, and definitely it's a question we're going to have to revisit in 6 months, a year, and five years from now.

But your claim that cossack's prediction is the most cynical view is inaccurate, I'd say.

To me, the difference is between:

A) people who latch onto the "bringing democracy" idea at face value, depsite how late in the game the Bushies brought it up (only after realizing the BS about national security wasn't convincing anyone).
B) people (like cossack) who judge the likelihood of success in historical terms, comparing it to how we've "brought democracy" to other countries where we've intervened militarily in the past few decades.

In any case, it's not impossible that we could do it right this time, and I'm with you in hoping it does turn out that way. Many on the left just can't help but noticing the early signs pointing towards this being very much "business as usual" in terms of global economics, oil, and Western colonialism. Hopefully, we're wrong.

 

Thanks for the props.

Meanwhile, "late" is a relative term. The National Security Strategey, in PDF form on the Web House web site, became official policy last September, before we started to move troops over in invasion-like numbers. The implication for the bringing of democracy generally is in those pages.

Of course, the principles behind this document were articulated at the beginning of the 90s in the first Bush reign -- principles toned down in a re-write then, but never far from the hearts of certain conservatives now in positions of influence.

And, finally, regime change in Iraq has been an ongoing policy of this government, signed off by the president and Congress in the Clinton administrations, and continued into Bush II. And if we're going to change regimes, I daresay that most folks, including Clinton, don't want to exchange one despot for another.

The difference between me and others on this issue, is that I am generally an optimist, while others are generally pessimistic. It's not wild-eyed optimism -- lots can happen, and lots can go wrong.

But others assume that since we've been bad and wrong before, we'll be bad and wrong again. I, on the other hand, think we CAN do better, and that we MUST do better.

Here's the heart of the matter: we only have on shot at this. That means we have to:

--conduct a military campaign with high principles
--transition quickly to a civil administration so we can get outta there (except for some stragetic military areas, limited in geography)
--engage in this transformation so that the government IS actually, and is perceived as, democratic and independent, yet peaceful and not a staging ground for WMD and terrorism.

I think the objectives, both short and long run, are QUITE clear, and QUITE transparent. The devil is in the details, but the achievement, or failure to achieve, these objectives will be very plain to see.

 

Kosovo?