Juan Cole’s latest article Will Sunnis fight Shiites in Iraq? is a fine analysis of the recent rallies attended by thousands of Sunnis and Shiites. He reflects upon the signifigance of these activities and presents two scenarios for how these movements may evolve, neither supportive of the Bush administration’s hope that the killing of Uday and Qusay will somehow bring calm to the land and acceptance of the ‘new order’ by its people.
The solution to this chaos seems simple enough to me but then I don’t have a burning obsession to convert all Muslims to Christianity or reorder the Middle East under the pretense of eliminating ‘terrorists’.
But according to Nikolai at lenin’s tomb, looking to the UN for a solution is idealistic in a world where laws are created and enforced by those with the wealth and power to do so. ‘Legality’ is malleable, a shopworn commodity, not necessarily the abrogator for humanity’s ills their creators parade them as in public forums. The UN, he writes, ‘is the precise institutional representation of imperial power.’
Bremer has ruled out a UN force. Instead he states the U.S. is looking for the UN to issue a request to others for peacekeeping forces.
“The Secretary of State mentioned over the weekend that the administration was willing to consider the question of whether there should be a U.N. resolution inviting countries to provide troops”, he said. “But I think it’s quite clear from transition economies, countries in political transition over the last 20 years, that it’s important to have unity of command in the military side.”
I don’t think Bush & Co. are seeing this situation clearly at all or that Iraq will fit neatly into any economic prospectus Bremer might cobble together. And I think the American people aren’t going to be pleased when the real costs of this venture start piling up.
I’m assuming you mean either the fiscal costs or the costs to international relations.
I guess that would depend on the American. Some might object to the rising costs but welcome any damage done to international relations, while others would have a problem with both. Then there are Americans who care about those issues as well the continuing loss of lives. I’m of a mind that the entire action should never have occurred but now that it has we have an obligation to repair the damage. We should pull back from these contracts and business dealings and sit down with other countries and figure out how best to return the country to its people as quickly as possible. In a world that made sense Bush & Co. would be brought to justice for what I consider to be a crime against humanity.
In the context of the statement I was alluding to the staunchest supporters of the effort or his base. Not the ideologues in the administration but the regular people who didn’t give much thought to what this action would entail in the long run and thought it could be wrapped up as neatly as the ‘war’ was presented to them on Fox. Bush supporters who won’t be as thrilled with him months down the road if the insurgencies persist and the oil revenues continue to fall short of ‘rebuilding’ needs. I figure they will likely care a lot less who is and isn’t ‘free’ in Iraq when sticker shock sets in and it finally occurs to them that removing Saddam won’t magically transform an Islamic state into a fascimile of ours.
I think you’re right, to the degree that sector of the populace will still be thinking about it. Overall, there is very much a “Get over it, move on to the next thing,” mentality, as we saw evidenced with Gulf War I and the election fiasco of 2000, among other events. The one event people (in general) don’t want to get entirely over seems to be 9/11.
It will be no easy challenge to balance the practical aspects of the occupation and rebuilding with the humanitarian needs and the short attention spans of the American public. I see a number of progressives calling for an immediate and complete withdrawal, but if we do that we will only damage the country further by ensuring instability, which is exactly what no one wants more of in the “middle East.” There needs to be an international peacekeeping force and an international team of advisors, both to include as high a proportion as possible of representatives from majority Muslim countries with a much better understanding of Iraqi culture than Americans or Brits have (including Lawrence of Arabia). The task of the team of advisors ought to be working toward setting up a representative government in Iraq and supervising to avoid corruption, coups, erupting warlords, etc., and otherwise staying the hell out of the way.
Something that bugs me. For years we were told one of the justifications for the continued sanctions was that Saddam stole ‘billions’ from his people building lavish palaces, etc. They pushed this idea that once he was ‘gone’ the oil revenues would be enough the Iraqi people would flourish under their proper management.
Once it became clear the attack was inevitable we began hearing these funds ‘wouldn’t be enough’ to restore what we’ve destroyed let alone provide a foundation to build a thriving Iraq economy.
So what’s the deal? How many hands are now in the cookie jar and if that’s the case, what makes these people any different than Saddam?
Now the Bushies expect those who knew the intelligence was bogus to merrily agree to send ‘peacekeeping’ troops while the administration works overtime ensuring whatever contracts these same countries had with Iraq before the invasion are null and void.
I suppose I expect all governments to be corrupt to some extreme. But how can anyone defend not only the extent but the arrogance of Bush & Co.? I think what angers me most at this point is that their policies since 9/11 have put us more in danger than we were before the attack.