Keith,
As I've said, Iran made the Carter administration look a little foolish. They were quite happy to support Saddam. But, not with weapons, as far as I can tell. They did send lots of food, also computers and other things that are called "collateral weapons" by those anxious to believe that the US funded the war and supplied Iraq with the means to invade Iran.
Russia and France massively made the war with Iran possible.
Iraq owes the US about $4 billion, but I don't know for what.
More Chinook's and Blackhawks are unlikely to be shot down (I'm really going out on a limb) for the military will take steps to avoid it -- something they obviously weren't taking seriously until the birds went down.
They are beginning to attack, however. This is something that must be done if any progress is to be made against the insurgents. These are beginning to overstep their warrant, as they begin to kill Muslims, and attack mosques. The more anger they create among other Iraqis, the more informers will come forward.
There is a story today about the pizza maker in Baghdad. The Iraqis haven't taken too much to pizza as yet, but he is making a pretty good living (about $1000 a week). Trouble is that when the bombs go off, so does his business. Just another example of ordinary Iraqis going about their business as best they can despite the thugs.
Harry
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:46 PM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal?
I don't know much about previous American support for Saddam, but they were certainly cheering him on when he was fighting Iran.
As to my speculation that Bush is preparing to withdraw from Iraq, I've already said to Karen that I wouldn't put a lot of money on it at this stage but I think this policy will become increasingly attractive if Chinooks continue to be shot down. A lot depends on just how many weapons and explosives that the Sunnis and Saddam's supporters have access to. If they're available, then the terrorism will continue -- and probably intensify, as seems to be happening now.
The Americans are retreating increasingly into well-guarded enclaves and, if terrorist attacks continue, I think they'll start to refuse to go out on patrol. They have no prospect of getting on top of the Sunnis, who appear to be the largest force behind the incidents, because of the social/tribal complexity. However, the Shias could soon sort them out if they were armed well enough and had a large enough army behind them. This is the logic of the situation.
Keith
At 15:59 07/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Keith,
Much speculation, as always good. Just a point that I've
mentioned before.
You said:
"One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent
change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring
democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion
of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam
Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of
warfare on Iran."
The war was with communism. At one point, 49 of the 51 African
nations were dictatorships - military, or otherwise. Did we end
our "friendships with Africa because of that? Dictatorship is the
government of choice in much of the world - if choice is the
right word.
Our support for Saddam was of the nature of "Go to it, buster!"
We didn't send him arms (the 2,400 tanks and 400 aircraft that
invaded Iran were Russian - the French supplied some Mirages
later.)
Iraq owes us $4 billion but I don't know what for - could be food
and suchlike. At least four times much is owed to France and
Russia. Probably for refitting the armies and air force for the
final invasion of Iran which ended the war, after a carnage that
resembled the First World War.
Sadam's weapons were Russian and French - not American.
After Iran had made Carter and the US look foolish, we didn't
like it much, so probably were very happy with Saddam's intention
to invade.
So, where were American weapons of war? Probably in Iran.
Certainly their Air Force was composed of F14's, F15's, and some
other American planes. (A couple of American shiploads did slip
through the blockade with spare parts for the planes, but the
slipping didn't last long when France sent Saddam 30 Mirages
armed with Exojets.)
That's all!
Harry
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith
Hudson
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 7:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal?
One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent
change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring
democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion
of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam
Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of
warfare on Iran. No longer, it would seem, did Bush invade Iraq
because of international terrorism, nor because of Weapons of
Mass destruction. (The Special Task Force of 2,000 American
troops which have apparently been searching for WMDs for months
have not turned up anything yet. WMDs were never there in the
first place, as the UN Inspectors believed, and as further recent
evidence suggests -- see the article below.)
The US death toll reported in today's Independent article below
(142) has already been augmented this morning by another four
soldiers killed in a downed helicopter and possibly two more in
other incidents on the roads.
For electoral reasons a year from now, Bush may now already be
deciding to leave well before next summer. One or two
particularly dramatic terrorist attacks could cause the American
electorate to swing ferociously against Bush at almost any time
from now onwards.
Of course, some believe, including the present writer, that Bush
invaded Iraq in order to ensure that US and UK oil corporations
would be able to develop the immense northern oilfields from
which Saddam had mischievously excluded them. But, in the biggest
mistake that Bush (or, probably, Cheney) made, these corporations
refuse to be involved until there's a legitimate Iraqi government
in place and not the American-imposed Coalition Provisional
Authority.
Two or three more speeches along the lines that Bush has just
made would allow him to segue right out of Iraq -- throwing it a
constitution and holding an election along the way which will
ensure a Shia majority. If he makes sure that the Shias have
sufficient well-armed forces at their disposal, this ought to
ensure that the previous oppressors, the Sunnis, will be
subjugated (or chased into Syria) and, if and when Saddam emerges
from hiding, he will be quickly caught and executed.
This scenario may seem unlikely -- even absurd at the moment --
but I don't see any other way out of Bush's predicament and
possible humiliating defeat next November. He's not gained what
went to Iraq for -- WMDs or oil -- so he might as well leave now
as craftily as he can. He's been able to con most of the American
electorate so far, so he ought to be able to swing this new
strategy across them as a piece of international statesmanship in
the name of bringing democracy to one more country.
Just one postscript for non-UK readers: there are likely to be
large demonstrations against Bush when he arrives. The usual
state procession down the Mall has already been cancelled and
it's exceedingly unlikely that Bush will be able to show his face
in public in the usual way.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
BUSH CALLS IRAQ MISSION 'WATERSHED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY'
Rupert Cornwell
Washington -- Less than two weeks before what may be a stormy
state visit to London, President George Bush yesterday cast
himself as a new Ronald Reagan, vowing to bring freedom and
democracy to the Middle East and beyond
-- just as Mr Reagan did with the Soviet Union, in his "evil
empire"
address to the British Parliament 21 years ago.
Speaking on the day he signed into law the Bill authorising $87
billion of extra funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Bush set
out his vision of a modernised and democratic Iraq serving as
example throughout the region.
Separately, administration officials confirmed that they had
received a behind-the-scenes proposal, supposedly from Saddam
Hussein, offering a deal last March to stave off the looming war.
But the contact was rebuffed by the CIA.
Though experts said the move may have been of little
significance, critics presented the episode as further proof that
Mr Bush would let nothing interfere with his determination to go
to war.
In his speech yesterday Mr Bush once again made no reference to
mounting US casualties in Iraq, including two more fatal attacks
yesterday, bringing to
142 the death toll since he declared the end of major combat
operations.
Nor did he refer to the strains on the military, and yesterday's
Pentagon announcement that 132,000 troops and reservists will be
sent to relieve units who have been in the region for a year.
Instead he stressed that failure in Iraq would embolden
terrorists around the world, but "the establishment of a free
Iraq will be a watershed event in the global democratic
revolution."
That, clearly, is the message he will deliver during his address
to an audience of dignitaries in London on 19 November, the
centrepiece of his state visit. And his references to the
dismissive reaction to Mr Reagan's speech in Westminster Hall
left no doubt that he is expecting more of the same for himself.
"It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer
of Ronald Reagan," Mr Bush yesterday quoted from a newspaper
editorial of the time, recalling how some observers had
pronounced the "evil empire" speech to be "simplistic and naive,
and even dangerous". In fact the current unpopularity of Mr Bush
and his administration -- widely perceived in Europe as
high-handed, arrogant and ignorant -- eclipses that of Mr Reagan
in 1982, at the height of the Cold War. But Mr Bush stressed he
would not be deterred.
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the
lack of freedom in the Middle East had done nothing to make the
world safer, the President told the National Endowment for
Democracy here. "It would be reckless to accept the status quo,"
he declared, defending his doctrine of preemptive action as "a
forward strategy of freedom". He attacked the "outposts of
oppression" in Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma, but praised
Morocco and other Arab states such as Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan,
who are gingerly taking steps towards democracy. He called on
Egypt and Saudi Arabia to move faster along the path of reform,
and delivered familiar tirades against leaders in Iran and
Palestine who were blocking their peoples' aspirations to
freedom.
The Independent -- 7 November 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>,
<www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England,
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/6/2003
