Reply
Wed 7 Apr, 2004 06:49 am
Remember the mood in Washington a year ago today? U.S. troops were closing in on Baghdad, and the expectation was firmly in place that when Saddam's regime fell, American soldiers would be greeted, Vichy Paris-style, with roses strewn at their feet by the grateful natives.
At the time, that fantasy was already being undermined by the reality of the reception U.S. troops had gotten early on in the invasion. It was never more than delusional to think that America, which had launched a war and countless additional bombing raids on Iraq over the past decade, plus an economic embargo that killed a million or more Iraqis, would be welcomed with unreserved adoration. Alas, it seems never to have occurred to anyone in the black and white world of the Bush Administration that Iraqis could both hate Saddam and not want to see their country taken over by Western invaders and carpetbaggers.
That said, the way in which America has run its new possession in the last year is the greater part of why America seems to have few friends left. Between last week's brutal Sunni tableau in Fallujah and this weekend's Shiite uprisings in cities across Iraq, an obvious question presents itself: is there anyone left in Iraq that doesn't want the U.S. and its lackeys gone?
It's a particularly sobering question because, as the self-imposed deadline for a July 1 transfer of power looms, things are unquestionably going to get worse before they get better. How do we know this? Because at every step thus far, the American response to previous provocations has only deepened the mistrust and enmity of most Iraqis.
Set aside, for the moment, the breathtaking corruption and incompetence of the U.S. occupation, one that has left up to 80% of Iraq jobless and failed to provide even minimal security or basic services for ordinary citizens. American forces are presumably running Iraq, but they can't even be bothered to count the Iraqi dead. The desecration of American bodies in Fallujah last week has, in Iraqis' eyes, plenty of precedence -- in countless roadside explosions where American forces scoop up their own bodies and run, leaving local residents to pick up the splattered brains and severed limbs of their neighbors and attend to the rapid burial Islam demands.
Today, Iraqi Viceroy Paul Bremer declared the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr an "outlaw," an act of repression all too reminiscent of tactics Saddam once used. So was the shutting down last week of the critical Shiite newspaper Al Hausa. So, for that matter, is the lack of a judicial system, the widespread reports in Iraq of political prisoners and torture, and the entire existence of the Americans in Iraq in heavily fortified palaces and armed convoys.
We've come a long, long way from last year's visions of rose petals.
Fallujah, now cordoned off by the Marines, is in the heart of the so-called "Sunni Triangle," where anti-American resistance is (so far) fiercest. Meanwhile, the majority Shiites are also strongly opposed to both the new U.S.-imposed constitution and the rulers it will put in place July 1. The opposition runs far deeper and broader than young firebrands like al-Sadr; the country's most revered Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has sent a letter to the U.N. demanding that it not recognize the U.S. constitution, or else Iraq's Shiites would make the country ungovernable. As of this past weekend, they're well on the way.
In the face of all this, why is the Bush Administration so adamant about the July 1 handover? It's all about the election, and not just because an Iraq run by Iraqis is a campaign bonus for Dubya. It's also a precondition for the fire sale of Iraq's resources. Bush's neocons have been anxious to privatize any and all of the over 200 state-run agencies and companies that administered Iraq under Saddam -- one reason why U.S. forces allowed all but the Oil Ministry to be looted and burned in the days after Baghdad's fall. Someone would have to get all those contracts to rebuild Iraq's schools, health care system, utilities, and so on.
But it turns out that an occupying army cannot, under international financial law, sell off a country's resources -- only a legitimate native government can do that. Hence, the importance of the U.N. recognition of the constitution, and of the July 1 handover. Dubya's buddies will have four months to get even richer before the November election.
In the interim, and long after, more than a few soldiers and an enormous number of Iraqis are likely to die. At this point, the only scenario that would prevent it is an almost complete reversal of course: administration of Iraq by an international body until a genuinely representative Iraqi government can be agreed upon and full elections held. That's not what the Bush Administration wants. And sadly, that's not what we're going to get. Outrage will beget repression will beget outrage; Iraq will get a new dictator July 1; and the streets of Iraq will turn red -- but not from roses.
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16715
Who else is left? The Kurds, they like us. Of course, everyone else in the region hates them, so . . .
Wel, we haven't offended Russia in a while....
Rarely have the Sunnis and the Shiites come together on anything.
Ah well, Bush did say he was a uniter...
And there are the Chinese, all 1.3 billion of them. Bush hasn't pissed them off in a few months.................
LOL!!!
Hey, at least the US still supports Israel. Believe me, being hated by the Jews would be a serious embarassment.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace