Clarification

[libertango]

Let's take a closer look at something I just said:

* Iraq will be a pushover. Mostly because it doesn't have anything to really fight with.

Right again.

But the occupation has been problematic. How much of a "pushover" is Iraq right now?

The answer to that is mostly in my post of March 30, where I made a comment about an article of Thomas Friedman's. Using his analogy of Iraq being like a Let's Make a Deal prize, I said there was an increasing possibility that what it contains is a note saying, "Congratulations! You just won Palestine. Only there's 80 times more land mass, and 9 times more people."

I then went on to point out that the Israelis have never been able to subdue the Palestinians, even though they've had fifty years to try, and have been willing to use much more force than we're likely to.

Nothing in that has really changed -- we're an occupying force viewed as invaders by the locals, and they're going to continue to kill 3-5 troops per week at minimum until we leave.

So, yes, knocking Iraqi Dumpty off the wall was a "pushover". Putting Iraq back together again is probably damn near impossible -- same as with Palestine.

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

The difference between Iraq and Palestine, though, is that while the Israelis wanted the physical territory occupied by the Palestinians, the US doesn't want the physical territory occupied by the Iraqis. The US may want a number of things connected with that - the right to have large US forces stationed in Iraq (in order to be able to remove their military forces from Saudi Arabia), the right to economic control over Iraqi oil, the right to control Iraqi government.

(The laginappe of massive profits from "reconstructing" Iraq is, I believe, just a cherry on the cake. Naturally the Bush Administration sees that this is a good thing to happen and bulk of those massive profits should unquestionably go to American businesses squarely connected with the US Republican party, but I don't believe that it was a direct motive for invading Iraq. End of necessary digression)

But I think the three main points are: Have military control in the Middle East, by having one country where American troops and military equipment can be stationed. Have economic clout in the Middle East, by controlling Iraqi oil. Retain the military and economic clout by ensuring that whatever government ends up officially in charge of Iraq, they are first of all loyal to the US.

We will see elections in Iraq in 2004. We will do so, because it is necessary that Bush should be able to run for his second term as President claiming that the Iraqi occupation is an unqualified success. But the Iraqi people will not be allowed to vote for a government that does not agree to put the US first.

The US does not need to keep an occupying army in Iraq long-term in order to achieve what it wants. The US only has to put the right government in power, make sure that they have the right equipment to control dissident Iraqis themselves, and can then step back. Given that Reagan, Bush, and others in their administrations who are now in power in the BushII administration, were perfectly able to ignore Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people for many years, I doubt if they will care much if the government they install resembles Saddam Hussein's government, so long as they can put an effective spin on whatever stories come out of Iraq. Something they appear to be quite confident of their ability to do.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

And what shall we do if they decide (a la Iran) that the puppet state we establish needs to be disposed of?

We are sowing the wind, there is no good way for us to get any great number of our troops out. This is not Korea, where we can leave a speed bump. We have to know that the state we want is stable.

The only way I can see to ensure that stability, in the medium term, is to maintain our occupation.

I also happen to think that travelling down that path leads to ruin.

So we've made ourselves a catch-22.

Terry K.