Resistance is the first step towards Iraqi independence

Romair #21

Thank you Hamid for helping me out here. I do have some time now so let me answer you the best I can. I am glad that you qualified your pitch with the following statement.

“This is how colonialism is carried out after WWII. No county now goes and physically occupies others. I doubt UK would try to physically occupy anyone now. Countries just control the resources of other countries, through autocratic regimes.”

What I was referring to was the fact that after its own colonial experience America has been very reluctant to take on colonies. The only attempt it made at colonization was in the Philippines, which it abandoned. As a matter of fact dissolution of the British colonial empire was part of the price that America exacted out of Britain for help in the Second World War – ref. “Empire the Rise and Demise of the British World Order”, by Niall Ferguson.

Regarding countries in the Middle East, what do you think about Turkey, which has been a staunch American ally from the beginning of the cold war and America has never attempted to subvert its democracy. For the rest of the Middle Eastern states you can fault America for looking out for its own interests which are intense because of the oil. As far as the criteria of using pro US dictators, that was definitely true thru out the Cold War years. During these years the only criteria used was how to check Soviet influence and gain American economic advantage. All the examples you have quoted fall into this category. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a new doctrine emerged, the US intervened to punish aggressors. Wars in Bosnia, against Serbia, in Somalia, first Gulf War all fall in this category. But no nation building took place, no martial plans, no institution building, the vanquished were left to their own devices. Even before the Afghan war Bush had declared no nation building, fact of the matter is that Iraq is the first country, which was assured nation building after the war and now Afghanistan has been added to that list.

I believe that 911 has had a profound impact on this nation’s psyche and for the first time ever is it trying to address what Musharraf has so eloquently referred to as “the root causes of terrorism”. Regarding elections, which America has continuously demanded, you just have to look towards Latin America. Right from Juan Peron’s time in Argentina to the present most Latin American countries have faced American pressure for elections. But did these elections further the cause of freedom in these countries? Of course not! Rule of Law, freedom of press, good governance are far more important then just elections. Having free and fair elections today in Afghanistan or Iraq would not bring about greater liberty, the results would be similar to those in Iran after the revolution. Point being that democracy is majority opinion. So if the majority is ignorant, then God help the nation.

As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, there is really no reason for it. Pakistan has and should invite America with open arms – please help us get rid of the Jehadis, the sectarian gangs, drug traffickers, the criminals, religious fanatics, the vederas, the feudals, rehabilitate the madrassahs the tyranny of the army and the bureaucracy. Help us in establishing rule of law, better schools and hospitals, better infrastructure, pollution control. The way they are working in Iraq, if we could recruit them to do the same in Pakistan, I would be the last to object.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

................this morning i woke up on the same side of the bed, my vente latte tasted the same, and the goofy starbucks guy assured me that there was no major policy change as far as suiciders, ayrabs and iraquis were concerned .................. and why should there be?........... as far as i can tell america has had a consistent foreign policy for the past hundred years based on the support for freedom, democracy and capitalism .............but first and foremost the government has to protect the interests of the american people........... and if in the short run america has to play ball with unavoury characters like musharraf and hosni mubarak, so be it ...........i don`t think the president of the united states should be engaged in a beauty contest with mother teresa .............

............ it is shameful how quickly the world has forgotten the debt it owes america for liberating europe and japan, and then saving the world from the evil of communism ............ now it is facing islamism - an equally perverse, dangerous and intractable enemy of freedom - and it has to do what it has to do to prevent it from spreading like the plague ............

............. it is also silly to keep on insisting that somehow the terrible regimes in the arab world are there because of america ............ nonsense!.......... they are part of a long tradition and have been there since the time of abu bakr.............like tahmed, i believe that the reason lies in the book .............

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair #80 you assume that politics reflects human likes and dislikes. however, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. reflect on this a bit and you will realize that the answer to the question ``what lies behind the arab-israeli conflict`` is not (as you say) due to arabs and israelis liking or disliking each other. the correct answer in fact is..... 42.

Ah.. now he is the expert on Arab-Israeli politics...

Air Marshal kay azeem karnamay!

Saminasha #79: ``Are you saying that ALL Arabs hate Israelis? And is it Israel that ``all`` Arabs dislike (i.e. Orthodox, settlers, progressives, etc.) or is it the policies being implemented by the current Israeli govt?``

In a purely mathematical sense, I suppose all Arabs do not hate all Israelis. No mathematical ALL hates any other mathematical ALL. By all, I mean the majority view in all the Arab countries. Once again, this is indicated by any survey in the region. Any talk show that takes place, any commentary on the subject. Any world event that takes place.

The dislike (or hatred) of Israelis, amongst the Arabs, is different from the dislike between, say, Pakistanis and Indians. Pakistanis and Indians have a lot in common also. And we have mainly a geographical conflict, which after its just and fair resolution, should result in normal, and probably even friendly ties. We do not have any cultural conflicts, and really not even any ideological conflicts (not counting the Indian views on Pakistan`s interpretation of TNT). In addition, Pakistan, though smaller and weaker, hasn’t been routed by India, and can generally hold its own to defend itself, economically and militarily. Hence, while Pakistan, ``dislikes`` India, it does not feel frustrated or humiliated by it.

In case of Arabs, they are frustrated, humiliated, and defeated, with respect to Israel. Israel, a country the size of Lahore-to-Gujranwala, has completely and thoroughly routed 22 Arab coutries, with 45 times the population and maybe 100 times the land mass. Can you imagine the frustration and helplessness in Pakistan, if an airplane from tiny Maldives or Dubai, could fly over Pakistan, anytime it wanted, and bomb any place it liked, and then return, without a problem. Maldives (or even India) cannot do that. But Israel can and has done that, anytime it wanted (West Bank, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, even Egypt - if we look at the 67 war). It is this frustration that eventually gets into the Arab views about the USA, and their views about their own regimes also (though that has many domestic aspects to it, as well).

As for the hatred of the Israeli regimes vs. the hatred of the Israelis themselves, I really don’t know. I have always assumed that hatred of regimes is really tied into the hatred of the people who support those regimes. There are, of course, voices on the Israeli side that oppose their own govts. But they are in a minority, and can never win an election. 60 Minutes showed an Israeli opposition candidate (retd. General) who is quite popular in the Arab neighborhoods of Israel. The guy had a policy that would ensure peace in Israel/Palestine in a day. I think it was almost a direct replica of the 67 borders policy that the Arabs have accepted. I assume the Arabs would like him and his voters.

But he loses to Sharon, again and again.

So, I suppose a more accurate statement would be, “According to all surveys, an overwhelming majority of Arab citizens in every single Arab country dislike Israeli govts.’ policies. This implies that they dislike the Israeli people who support such govts., which happens to be a clear majority of the Israeli population. However, I assume the Arabs like any Israeli who opposed such policies and voted against them.”

Romair,

Are you saying that ALL Arabs hate Israelis? And is it Israel that ``all`` Arabs dislike (i.e. Orthodox, settlers, progressives, etc.) or is it the policies being implemented by the current Israeli govt?

re: Arjun_m # 72

I will try to answer your questions.

You have to see the policy in a long term sequence to realize its value. In the case of Pakistan, Carter did not favor Pakistan due to the martial law in 1977 and it was the Soviet Union`s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which made him reconsider United States` policy with Pakistan. Reagan and Bush supported Pakistan`s military rulers due to their interests in Afghanistan and as a result of that policy, Pakistani society was rendered more intolerant and more polarized. Zia-ul-Haq`s concept of Sharia was tolerated by the Americans, because of Zia`s support for American policy aims in Afghanistan. You are too astute an observer to be told how Zia`s sharia affected Pakistan and its politics. After Bush, Clinton down graded American ties with Pakistan and through his eight years, maintained a working relationship but not close ties with Pakistan. He did not favor the coup of 1999. After him, for about 18 months Bush, Jr. did not make any entreaties towards Pakistan till September 11, 2001. The United States foreign policy has oscilliated between pragmatism and idealism, but now the pragmatism seems to be converging with idealism.

Yes, I do have faith in the intentions of the United States, because I share its idealism: life, liberity and the pursuit of happiness and in the ideals of ``we the people...``

I agree with you on the score that the United States` policy towards Israel makes for good domestic politics, but as my post to Urstruly suggests that policy is being reconsidered. You are right on the account of the American treatment of Saudi Arabia with gloved hands. Arjun, that policy of appeasing Saudi injustices for a handful of dollars did not serve American interests did it? After it was Saudis who flew those planes into the Pentagon and the WTC in New York. Again, the basic paradigm is being reconsidered. I do not know, which president is going to risk his/her second term for such a policy, but this is not about second terms; its is about consistency of policy regardless of party politics - it is about the United States of America and not about the Democrats or the Republicans or the Greens or the Independents.

In the end, I agree with your conclusion that democracy in Middle East will come despite American intentions. It will come, because the people will realize that that fate rests in their own hands and if they stand up for their rights, the oppressors will not have the support of the United States. Once the shackles of mental slavery are removed, all other freedoms follow accordingly.

Ciao

ferozk #75

You can do this and try to keep the Americans bogged down in Iraq, but how long can you do this this?

If I were an Arab despot I would do it until the US Election next November. I, as a despot can see that what I am doing in Iraq is working and it is dimminishing Bush`s chances of re-election. I also know that some democrats have approached me and promised me that if I keep Bush bogged down until election I will get to keep my despot status if Democrats win the elections. It is the same game that Republicans played during the Iran hostage crises when they asked Iran to keep holding the hostages until Jimmy Carters elelctions.

There are two things that I cannot control i.e. US strikes against my country despite being bogged down in Iraq, but I know that these strikes at the most will be aginst my infrastructure and military installations. It cannot be followed by a ground invasion as long as there is resistence in Iraq. Though I know that even that will work in favor of me because the people in my country and in the whole region are quite pissed off by the relentless bullying and lawlessness of US and Israel and they hate both to the core of their bones. The other thing I cannot control is an act of mass terrorism inside US territory which will bolster Bush`s position in the election. In that case I have contigency plans to retreat to my personal island somewhere near Bahams from where I plan to send audio cassettes to Al-Jazeera.

Ferozek #various: I think Bush’s, “admission” would have carried far more weight, if he had said it before getting bogged down in Iraq. Policies don’t just immediately change, 180 degrees, in one day. Just two days ago, it was pre-emptive regime changes in the Middle East, and now it is an admission that the US is responsible for many of those regimes.

I highly doubt it.

The US, itself, really has no issues with the Middle Eastern countries. The two should be strong allies. One side has oil that the US needs in abundance. And the other side has dollars and technology that the Middle East needs in abundance. They have no geographical conflicts, no historical conflicts and no ideological conflicts.

Yet they are in conflict.

All of this has occurred because of the Israeli/Palestine situation. This has brought the US in on one side and the Arabs on the other side. And now this has taken a life of its own, with the US and Arabs fighting each other. To the extent, that this new conflict is now much bigger than the original conflict (Israel/Palestine) that started it.

For policies/solutions to work, everything, and every involved groups’ interests have to line up. If they don’t, then the policies do not work; even if they are well intentioned. This is one of the reasons that the US invasion of Iraq is not working. The initial objective of removing Saddam had the US and Iraqi interests in one line. So he is gone. But, after that, the US and Iraqis interests are in opposite directions. The USA wants influence and control in Iraq, while the Iraqis want the USA to leave.

Similarly, the dislike of the USA in the Middle East, due to its support of autocratic regimes in the Middle East, occurs because the interests of USA, now, are not in line with the interests of the citizens of those countries. The USA wants friendly regimes, even if they are autocratic. While the citizens do not like the autocracy. The US only removes the autocratic regimes, when the regimes themselves become anti-USA (like Saddam). Otherwise, it does all it can to keep them in place.

So one would think that if the autocratic regimes are removed and real nationalism is allowed to come to the top, then the US interests would line up with those of the Arab people, and the two will become friends. However, I don’t think that will happen. Why? Because there is one more involved party..

Israel.

Arabs hate Israelis, with a passion. In fact, the Arab people hate Israel more than the Arab autocratic regimes do. Opinion polls show this. A recent opinion poll by the Economist showed that the three most hated non-Arab countries amongst Arabs are Israel, USA and UK. While the three most like non-Arab countries amongst Arabs are Iran, France, (can’t remember the third). If nationalistic Arab feelings show up through democracy, they will be backed by an extremely strong anti-Israel and anti-USA tone.

For example, a democratic Jordan would be more anti-Israel and anti-USA than a king ruled Jordan. A democratic Saudi Arabia will definitely be far more anti-USA than the Saud family. A democratic Iran is far more anti-USA than an autocratic Shah was. A democratic Iraq will remain anti-USA. A democratic Egypt will be far more anti-Israel and anti-USA than Hosni Mubarak is. A democratic Turkey, now, is not nearly as pro-USA as the Turkish Generals were. So on and so forth. In fact, a truly democratic Pakistan would be more anti-USA than the current Pakistan.

This would cause a lot of new problems for the USA. It needs its allied regimes in the region. The recent Iraq war involved the US using neighbouring countries like Qatar and Kuwait for logistic bases, much against the wishes of the people. The Afghan war used Pakistan for logistics, much against the wishes of the Pakistani people. It would have been much more difficult for the USA to win these wars without such logistical support. It is no coincidence that a democratic Turkey did not allow such logistical support.

Suppose OBL stands in a free election in Saudi Arabia against a member of the royal family. Or a Wahabi religious leader, is in an election, against King Fahd. Who would win? What if OBL wins? Pro-Iran Shia clerics will win elections against pro-USA Chalabis any day, and twice on Friday. What if they come into power?

Not to mention the fact that the Arabs seem very possessive of their oil. They think their regimes are giving it up to the West. OBL has stated that the price of oil should be $300/barrell and not $30/barrel (may sound outrageous, but remember, it used to be $3/barrel at one time). Nationalistic Arab govts. will definitely be much more difficult to influence on oil prices.

In fact, the easiest way to become publicly popular in these countries, seem to be, by taking on the USA. Even if the citizens know you are a confirmed terrorist, like OBL, you can still be popular, if you take on the USA – which is considered an even bigger terrorists by many voters.

Hence, there are in-built dilemmas and contradictions in the USA’s stance in the Middle East, and in Bush’s recent statements. To get a pro-USA democracy or at least a neutral-USA democracy in the Middle East requires a settling of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That settlement requires an immense amount of pressure on Israel from the USA, to allow the Palestinians their homeland. This will then take the USA out of the conflict, thereby settling its relations with the Arabs into a stage of mutual benefit.

However, do you really think any US govt. is willing to put so much pressure on Israel? The Christian Conservatives in the Republican party and the Jewish Leagues in the Democratic party will ensure any US Representative who votes in that direction, doesn’t get elected again. Much like the NRA does.

So the epicentre of Middle East democracy doesn’t lie in the countries towards which Bush has pointed. It actually lies in Israel (and in Saudi Arabia). Two very staunch US allies/regimes. Until and unless the USA can get those two countries to reform their policies, any Middle Eastern democracy will be totally against US interests and will be very anti-US.

I don’t think any US govt. has the courage to get those two countries to tow the line. Until then, US foreign policy will be based on relationships with autocratic rulers in the Middle East. At least in such scenarios, the Arab populations may dislike the USA, but many of the kingdom govts. of these countries are pro-USA. With democracy in the region, without the solution of Palestinian issue and reform of the house of Saud, not only the people will be against the USA, the govts. they elect will be against the USA also.

And that will make it much more difficult for the USA to get oil from there, and much stronger opponents for Israel. Hence I wouldn’t read too much into Bush’s statements. There are too many conflicting interests in the area.

re: Urstruly # 68

Urstruly, if you will read Israeli newpapers, you will see articles/analysis, which do showcase this problem. Most Israelis commentors admit that it was the harsh policies of Tel Aviv, which fuelled the Palestinian reaction and made a bad situation worse. It was this concern, which forced the Israeli army`s chief of staff to sound the clarion call to the Sharon government about its non-compromising attitude and harsh policies in the occupied territories. Israel citizens are also concerened, because by 2010, the populations of the Palestinians and the Israelis will be at par; 6 million each and by 2050, Israelis will be a minority. There is an opinion in Israel, isolated at the present, but one which vocalizes that if the Jews are to maintain their identity, they might have to consider the idea of two nation states.

There was an article in the International Herald Tribune, by an American, who suggested that if the United States continues with its policy of blindly supporting Ariel Sharon`s government policy in the occupied territories, it will ironically be undermining Israeli security and harming American interests in the region. This is also the concern of the American-Jews and they have often stated this view point.

Urstruly, democracies take a long time to reach a consensus, because of many differing voices, which compete in the market place of ideas and when they do, it is generally based on what the public thinks will serve its interests best. People can make the wrong choice in a democracy, but they also have the right to correct their mistake and in the case of Israel, if people think that Sharon and his policies has made them insecure, they will vote him out of office.

You said, ``why shouldn`t they send their rag tag fighters into Iraq and provide financial and militaristic support to those who are fighting americans in Iraq`` about the regimes who might be next on the American list. My question is this: if they do this, how are they serving the interests of their populations by picking a fight against Uncle Sam? For example, if Syria`s Assad does this to maintain his power and the United States imposes sanctions or takes a military action, how will the Syrians benefit from this? On the other hand, if Assad does this to maintain his power, then his government is not representative of the Syrians, is it? You can do this and try to keep the Americans bogged down in Iraq, but how long can you do this this?

Ciao

ferozk #66 agree with you, and bush has no doubt has put money where his mouth is by seeking (at cost of much political goodwill in the congress and the taxpaying electorate) and getting $87 b. approved at a time of major budget deficits and next elections looming. of course no one, except Father Time, knows what the outcome of all this will be.

But one things is certain: bush has given the iraqis the best shot in six centuries any part of the arab world has had in moving out of the ``self-slavery`` mindset to which they had been reduced under the ottomans and other kings and caliphs and whatnots who basically stole from the muslims the gift of individual responsibility and self-respect that came with the original message of islam and reduced them to the Abdul that hamidm often refers to.

The big question today is: Will a true statesman emerge from among the iraqis, who will rise above the arab skepticism born of centuries of slavery to caliphs and kings, and realize the opportunity for iraq to become a modern, democratic and egalitarian nation that is being provided by bush on a silver platter? If such a man does emerge as national leader, the iraqis will be the first arabs to emerge from the Arab Dark Ages. So far, such a man is not in sight among the current sad bunch of the shiite mullahs, the expat carpetbaggers, the sunni recidivists, the local tribal chiefs, the kurd separatists.

If the iraqis fail and the US ends this big gamble and moves out before iraq has fully stepped out of the ADA (Arab Dark Ages), a new generation of iraqis will find themselves under another saddam or another wahabi or some other scumbag.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: arjun_m # 69

Arjun, this change is not going to be implemented immediately. In the last 100 years, there were some major ideas, which influenced United States` foreign policy. One was Woodrow Wilson`s idealism in foreign and another was Jimmy Carter`s idea of a foreign policy influenced by human right considerations. The changes, which resulted from these pronouncements did not happen over right, but they did evolve into a set of influences, which shaped the United States` foreign policy. Policy takes a while to formulate and it takes an even longer time to see the end results emerge.

As to the utility of this policy within a four year election cycle, the answer is that policy will work if it is accepted across the political spectrum. In the begining, the GOP was always taken to the task by the democrats for supporting dicators and now, GOP and its leader are admitting the failure of that policy. I am not certain if we can imply that policy statement suggests an end to realpolitik or not, but what is clear is that there is realization of past mistakes. Again, the final results of this policy will take a generation or more to emerge.

My statement/interacts were conditioned on what the situation might be 25-30 years from today if this policy is accepted and new policies are made under its strictures. I am thinking of the future and as far as the present is concerened, there will be no visable change in the United States foreign policy.

Ciao