I wouldn't quarrel with most that you've written but I don't think you'll be right in what you say in your last paragraph:
<<<<
But if the mistake is to be rectified, it can't be by way of an American withdrawal. It can only be by the US seeing it through, putting its money where its mouth is, bringing the various Shia, Sunni and other elements together and creating a genuine working democracy. Anything else will drag on and on and on in the history of the 21st and 22nd Centuries (etc.) as bombings and retribution bombings.
>>>>
The whole Iraqi operation has been such a confidence trick that the vengeance of the people will be considerable when it happens. It looks as though it's beginning to happen in England. Whether Blair and Alastair Campbell will be torn apart or not during the cross-examination phase of the Hutton Enquiry next week, Blair has now largely lost the credibility of the people. I forecast this about a year ago on FW and opined that Blair would have to resign imminently. I was wrong then. But it's going to happen quite soon.
As for Bush, much the same tearing apart of his case, little bit by little bit, is now beginning to happen. Unless the Americans capture/kill Saddam in the next six months and magically produce an Iraqi government that will be acceptable by the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis, then Bush will have to withdraw his troops from Iraq -- probably before the next presidential election.* It is said that General Wesley Clark is being considered as a Democratic candidate. Previously he's on record as saying that he didn't know whether he was Democrat or Republican. If he were a shrewed politician he would now make it known quietly that he is really a closet Republican and that he would withdraw from Iraq. Then we would see some interesting moves within the Republican Party!
One of my other forecasts of about a year ago is that I thought that Bush would lose the next election, but mainly for economic reasons. I think it's almost certain now. Iraq only compounds it. If he can produce some fantastic rabbit out of the hat in order to justify withdrawing his troops or, on the other hand, if he can raise the jingoistic temperature enormously (by invading Saudi Arabia, say) then he might get in on a new nationalistc wave. But it looks very doubtful to me. It will be the next president who will have to decide on withdrawing from Iraq. And it will be the next president who will announce that Bush got his priorities wrong and that the main enemies of Amnerica was not Saddam Hussein, but the Al Qaeda and the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia.
KSH
*The American forces were incredibly stupid -- beyond anything that the lowliest State Department official could have told them -- in carrying out the pulverising killing of Saddam's sons -- especially with their father still alive and in hiding. It was unbelievable! They should have simply surrounded the house and starved the sons out. Instead, they made martyrs out of them. Saddam's stock went up a hundred-fold after that, even among Iraqis who hate him. I think (and I also wrote this about a year ago) that if -- I repeat IF -- Saddam can hold out in hiding and continue to produce terrorist incidents at the frequency of the last few weeks, then he'll be president of Iraq when we've forgotten all about Bush junior, except that he was a prat. No matter how much Saddam was hated, and no matter how brutal he was, every ordinary Iraqi knows in his heart (and the professional classes more so) that Saddam had to be repressive in the way that he was. I am not condoning his savagery. I am just stating a fact. Iraq was slowly and steadily proceeding to being a civilised country. Otherwise Iraq would have been as Shia-dominated as in Iran (where they constantly execute Christians and other religionists just for their beliefs) or as the Wahhabi sect's domination in Saudi Arabia -- where, if you recall, girls who were fleeing from a school fire, but not wearing the correct head-dress, were sent back by the local religious police and, of course, perished in agony. The Saudi Wahhabis regret that now but the same repressive regime continues and similar incidents like this still occur every day -- women being stoned for alleged adultery, arms being cut off by judicial sword, etc.
At 17:43 30/08/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> Niall Ferguson is, in my opinion, a brilliant historian and a Prof at both > Oxord and somewhere in America. I have three of his books on my shelves. He > also produced a brilliant BBC series recently on the British Empire. > However, I think he's dead wrong about America being an Imperial Power. In > the Middle East, America is just trying to look after itself and its future > oil supplies. However, this is a far stronger motivation than any amount of > empire building and can lead to far greater follies. > > KSH
Keith, I think the whole nature of empire has changed or, perhaps better, progressed since the 19th Century. It's become far more than bringing in the gunships, marching in the troops, making deals with the local rajah, and keeping down the wogs until they see things our way. It's a more subtle process involving investments and capital flows and, perhaps most importantly, demonstrations of the superiority of our way of life. Often, the advance guard is Mickey Mouse, MacDonald's or Baskin and Robins. When I was in Moscow in the mid-1990s, MacDonald's was not only a very popular place to eat, it was an island of peace and even sanity in the midst of chaos. It was one of the few places in Moscow that you got what you paid for. And if you didn't want to go to MacDonald's, you could take your rubles to the American Grill.
I recognize that, in Iraq, the Americans behaved like imperialists of old, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are imperialists of old. Yes, oil is important. So is maintaining a stable American presence in the Middle East and, if you can't do that in Saudi Arabia, you have to find another place. But I do agree with Andrew Bacevich that there is a higher moral purpose behind what the Americans are doing. They genuinely believe that, in American capitalism and democracy, they have found the ideal way of life and they want the whole world to know it and will promote it in whatever way they can.
In Iraq, the Bushies have made a terrible mistake, taking imperialism back to the 19th or even 18th Century, but as I argued to Lawry, they simply can't get out of this one. They have to see it through! They are on the ground, and unless they stay there, there will be complete, murderous chaos - witness the bombing in Najaf. While I like to take the attitude that Iraq is an American mess and their problem, I recognize that they may need help in sitting on it till they can clean it up and stabilize it, and that other western nations, including Canada, may have to pitch in.
But if the mistake is to be rectified, it can't be by way of an American withdrawal. It can only be by the US seeing it through, putting its money where its mouth is, bringing the various Shia, Sunni and other elements together and creating a genuine working democracy. Anything else will drag on and on and on in the history of the 21st and 22nd Centuries (etc.) as bombings and retribution bombings.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: US not an Empire (was Re: [Futurework] Will Bush become a Shia Moslem? Glass half-full or glass half empty?
> Ed, > > At 16:11 30/08/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Lawry, I don't think that the US has the luxury of admitting that it made a > >mistake. Whether it did so or not, it would remain in the very > >uncomfortable position of being the prime terrorist target. We mustn't > >forget that Sept. 11, 2001 happened before the US wars on Afghanistan and > >Iraq. A great many people were already very angry at the US before those > >wars and are far angrier now. What the US has to do is sit on both > >countries until they are pacified and fixed up, and especially Iraq. It has > >to demonstrate that it meant and business and continues to mean it. It may > >take a long time and it may cost a lot of money, but that is what it has to > >do. No matter what spin it puts on things, It can't just walk out saying > >"Ooops, sorry, we didn't mean that". > > > >Niall Ferguson is a British historian who has recently published a book > >called "Empire". I haven't read the book, but I saw him interviewed on TV. > >His main argument there was that the US is now an empire much like Britain > >was in the 19th Century. The difference is that Britain behaved like an > >empire and stayed in places like India long enough to bring about a genuine > >transition toward a more democratic and egalatarian system. He doubted that > >the US has the staying power to do so. > > Niall Ferguson is, in my opinion, a brilliant historian and a Prof at both > Oxord and somewhere in America. I have three of his books on my shelves. He > also produced a brilliant BBC series recently on the British Empire. > However, I think he's dead wrong about America being an Imperial Power. In > the Middle East, America is just trying to look after itself and its future > oil supplies. However, this is a far stronger motivation than any amount of > empire building and can lead to far greater follies.
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
