Good morning, Keith, I have tried several times to point out to you that you exaggerate -- greatly -- the significance of shi'i and sunni in Iraq. I know that the popular press makes a lot of it, but this is because the journalists are largely ignorant folk and they have latched onto this (and several other factoids) to give the impression that they are actually knowledgeable.
Sunnis and shi'i distinctions are more akin to contemporary differences in the US between Catholics and Protestants. Some particular issues do raise the distinction to some level of importance, but for most purposes, such as national defense, they are irrelevant. You are right in pointing out that the shi'is are pretty well organized, and that if they 'lose patience' they will become a force to be reckoned with -- but not with regard to a civil war with the sunni, but with regard to a concerted initiative to push the US out. And then hell will break out -- for US troops. The US is now the single largest threat to security in Iraq. If the US really wants to make Iraq 'secure', all we have to do is leave. Now. Unconditionally. Now there are those on this list who think that given what we have done to the Iraqis we have to stay further -- we 'owe' it to them. (When something doesn't work, it is a human tendency to go and do it harder, thus our sorry record in Viet Nam.) The only thing we owe the Iraqis is to get out. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not bad (though thoroughly illegal and a precedent that we set and are likely to rue someday). It would be nice if we left a pile of money behind for them to use to rebuild, but I can assure you the Iraqis would be happy for us to leave without giving them any money, if the alternative is for us to stay and pay for rebuilding. Westerners tend to underestimate the capabilities of 3rd world countries to manage their own affairs. Of course, Westerners also tend to overestimate how fine their own societies are. I must admit I marvel at the effrontery of the US in asserting that it can teach democracy to others, given the 2000 election, wherein the 'winner' was the one who received fewer votes. And given the ease with which corporations purchase policies through campaign and other donations. And given the ignorance with which Americans function. (Remember that back in Periclean times learning and participation was REQUIRED of the voters of Athens, and viewed as a sine qua non of democracy. Americans are flat out to lazy to sustain a true democracy.) And given the massive abandonment of civil rights that the Congress accepted with the Patriot Act. Never mind that we are thinking we can 'bring them democracy' at the point of a gun; the worse delusion is that the US has much to offer anyone in terms of a political model. So let us worry less about Iraqi internal conditions, and worry more about the deleterious effects of our policies there and elsewhere. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that it is our very own past policies of intervention in the affairs of others that brought Sept 11 down on our heads, as well as numerous other similar attacks. This is the dirty little secret of American politics, the 'why' of Sept 11 that Americans have so been so loath to consider. Of course, there are some other dirty little secrets that toxify US policies, but Americans could begin with this one. Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Tue, December 09, 2003 2:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] No NATO in Iraq > > > I hear from this morning's news that Lord Robertson, Secretary-General of > NATO, has ruled out the help of NATO forces in Iraq "until we > have done our > job in Afghanistan". (There are only 55,000 NATO troops available at any > one time anyway for use everywhere -- and Iraq needs at least 250,000 > troops to make the place really secure.) So that's a snub for Powell. (He > must be feeling very weary and lonely now.) But, of course, > Afghanistan is > falling back into its old ways -- Kharzei will be assassinated > soon I guess > -- it'll be either warlordism all over again now or the success of a > resurgent Taliban. America (and NATO) will be kicked out in due > course and > as ignominiously as the Russians were. > > Bush is now in an impossible situation in Iraq. There is no way he can > bring about a democratic (thus, Shia-dominated) government. The explosion > hurting 30 American soldiers this morning is further pressure that he'll > have to evacuate soon or else a civil war will start whether the American > troops remain or go. What a catastrophe! What stupidity! And the > Shia have > remained relatively quiet and patient so far! When their (Sistani's) > patience is exhausted there'll be a civil war against the Sunni. > > In this country, Blair is heading for a parliamentary defeat on a > students'-loans-at-university matter. I think he's contrived this > in order > to be able to resign 'with honour' (!) before the Hutton Report is > published in January/February and fingers him for lying (twice) > over the Dr > Kelly matter. (I think Hutton will only soften his report if Blair goes > beforehand.) This won't help Bush's attempts at internationalising the > occupation of Iraq (though not inviting the UN, of course, > because it will > insist on organising democratic elections). > > Surely, surely, there'll be moves to oust Bush in the next few > months? I'll > be very disappointed if Americans (intelligentsia-, CIA-, State > Department-, Republican Congress-inspired) haven't the nous to do > this well > before the electoral campaign starts in earnest. The Chinese must be > feeling increasing contempt for the American (democratic?) > political system > and the sort of people it throws up. (Come to think of it, it's > interesting > that Blair, despite his attempts in recent years to adopt an > international > statesman's role, has never been invited to China! I think they > must regard > him as a shallow person -- which he is -- and with great > amusement, if not > derision.) > > I wonder what impression Rumsfeld took back with him from Iraq? > My opinion > is that this visit was a clear sign of extreme desparation -- > which must be > close to its peak now. The impossibility of any sort of peaceful > transition > to government in Iraq must be dawning even on him. I think there'll be > signs of great ructions in the Bush team quite soon -- voluntary > resignation of Powell and Condee perhaps, followed by an ousting of Bush > and Cheney by various plotters as suggested above? > > Keith Hudson > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
