|
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
When reading stories like this, while yes, it most certainly is warming, just keep in mind the bigger picture.
Firstly, the hearts and minds victory was always going to be a lot easier in the Shiite south than in central or northern Baghdad due to the years of horrendous oppression they've faced at the hands of Saddam Hussein (the Kurds in the north have been similarly oppressed, but given the fractured idealogies - I think there's 4 different Kurdish groups vying for power in the soon-to-be power vacuum - and the likely rejection of calls for the creation of Kurdistan and the socialistic re-integration of Kurdish oil-fields into the rest of Iraq so as to benefit "all" Iraqis, there's less chance of celebration up north for the time being). But given the somewhat "ambivelent" welcome for the US troops in the south - particularly Basra - you can only wonder just how keen the average Iraqi is about this US invasion:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...worldnews-print
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
Though of course, the only news stations I've seen reports about Iraqi dissent on are the BBC and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company), who have both not shied away from showing images of Iraqi civilians comfronting coalition troops. At best the situation in the south seems relatively low-key, despite scenes of both protest and some joy, as the story posted at the top represents.
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2534272
I think that articles dated a week or two ago are going to be innaccurate in judging Iraqi reaction since the country at that point in time was still firmly in the grip of the regime. Here is your Baghdad reaction however.
| quote: |
Nonetheless, we should expect the days immediately following the confirmed toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime to be the most "joyful" for the Iraqi citizens, when they finally realise they are free. However, that is surely just the beginning of the hearts and minds campaign. We must keep in mind how long Iraqi patience is going to last with the military occupation, likely to last 6 months - 2 years:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs04052003.html
I don't think there's any question about the average Iraqi disliking Saddam Hussein, but that is not to say they'll welcome the US military occupation either. The Fedayeen represents a reason why hatred of Saddam Hussein does not necessarily equate to support for the US "liberators":
http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/opinion/2003/4816.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Prin...4634297,00.html
These are volunteer conscripts fighting not for Hussein, but for the freedom of Iraq. Remember, these Shiite people are inherently distrustful of US claims to "freedom" given what happened following the conclusion of the Gulf War, where Shiite resistence fighters were encouraged to rise up to the Baath party but ended up being horribly crushed by the regrouping Iraqi army. They aren't likely to be easily swayed by the US propoganda effort (including pamphlet drops and the controlling of the Iraqi airwaves - in many parts of the country at least). So even in the parts of Iraq where you'd expect jubilation to be at its greatest, there are still reasons to question just how the Iraqi citizens will warm to this invasion.
Then, even after military occupation, there is still the question of just how "representative" this "democratic" Iraqi government is likely to be. Anyone who believes the Iraqi government is going to be selected by a mandate presented to the masses is kidding themselves. The coalition aren't going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the war and then the rebuilding afterwards just to let a "democratically elected" government take control of Iraq. Rather, they will attempt to form a "representative" government - hand-picking members from each of Iraqs ethnic groups - regardless of how much support there is for them amongst the average Iraqi population. In fact, the front runner to lead this new Iraqi government - Ahmed Chalabi - has been slammed by a CIA report suggesting that he has absolutely no support amongst the average Iraqi citizens:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID...07-055713-8345r
But so long as he looks after US interests and reverts back to trading oil in US dollars I don't suppose the Whitehouse or the Pentagon care too much.
In the thread that Tiesto14 posted entitled "Iraq to Use Chemical Weapons.... U Morons" (or something like that) I posed a series of questions that need to be answered satisfactorily before I could support this war - and that was assuming Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons, when it becoming increasingly obvious that they do not. Still, even as the war enters end game, none of these questions (about the future of the Iraqi government, the politics of the Arab world in general, how the removal of Saddam is likely to increase security and so on) look like being answered.
Oh, and before we get too carried away with how brilliant these American liberators are and about how much they care for the oppressed people of the world.....
.... let's not forget the state the Afghanistan is in right now. How long before the Americans get bored of paying for the "liberation" of the Iraqi people (which will cost tax-payers hundereds of billions of dollars over a period as long as a decade), the funds are withdrawn and the plight of the Iraqi people is forgotten?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2405191.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2460089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm
The war for Iraq may be coming to an end, but the real challenges lay ahead. We'll see how many Iraqis are dancing in the rubble that was once their streets in 6 months time. |
Agreed the time after the war will be a tricky situation. However, the funds committed to rebuild Iraq are already committed and a part of the US budget. Keep in mind however that over $500 million in aid was committed to Afghanistan in 2002 and right now approximately $300 million has been slated to be provided for FY 2003. It's not just the US's fault however,
| quote: |
Unfulfilled promises
Whoever pulls the strings though, little can be done in the way of rebuilding Afghanistan without one thing -- money.
In January a meeting of donor nations in Tokyo agreed to provide an unprecedented $4.5 billion to Afghanistan over the next five years.
As part of that deal a special trust fund administered by the World Bank was set up to help the government cover its annual budget, projected at around $460 million.
All grand promises which, ministers in the new government say, have yet to be delivered on.
With every passing day the need is ever more urgent and the warnings ever more stark.
By failing to deliver on promised funds, Afghan officials warn, the international community is in danger of letting Afghanistan slide once again into the kind of chaos that allowed it to become a base for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts.
Another failed state in Afghanistan could be an option the rest of the world can ill afford.
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...fghan.gov.feat/
|