Seumas Milne (Guardian Unltd): Iraq has now become the crucible

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Thursday September 25

Iraq has now become the crucible of global politics
The resistance to occupation has already changed the balance of power
By Seumas Milne

Is this what they mean by freedom ?" asked Zaidan Khalaf Mohammed on Tuesday after the US 82nd Airborne Division had killed his brother and two other family members in Sichir, central Iraq, in an air and ground assault on their one-storey home. The Americans had come, he said, "like terrorists", while US forces claimed they had only attacked when they came under fire. No evidence was offered and none found.
These killings are after all merely the latest in a string of bloody "mistakes" by US occupation forces, including the repeated shooting of demonstrators, murderous attacks on carloads of civilians at roadblocks and this month's massacre of members of the US-controlled Iraqi police force. In most countries, any of these incidents would have provoked a national or even an international outcry. But in occupied Iraq, US officials feel under no pressure to offer more than the most desultory explanation for the destruction of expendable Iraqi lives.
Six months after the launch of the invasion, it has become ever clearer that the war was not only a crime of aggression, but a gigantic political blunder for those who ordered it and who are only now beginning to grasp the scale of the political price they may have to pay. While George Bush has squandered his post-September 11 popularity, raising the spectre of electoral defeat next year as American revulsion grows at the cost in blood and dollars, Tony Blair's leadership has been fatally undermined by the deception and subterfuge used to cajole Britain into a war it didn't, and once again doesn't, support.
Every key calculation the pair made - from the response of the UN to the number of troops needed and the likely level of popular support and resistance in Iraq - has proven faulty.

Read more.

[bemildred]

1. My, he doesn't take any prisoners, does he?

:thumbsup:

[dudeness]

2. great article

:)

[T_i_B]

3. "crucible of global politics?" yes, withdraw the troops? No.

Although Iraq is the crucible of global politics in this day and age, and we were horrendously stupid to invade in the first place, Seumas Milne is incorrect IMHO to suggest that the UN would not be an improvement. The UN can has the experience, the altruism and the resources that The US/UK axis of idiocy does not. The UN is not perfect, but it does represent a far better chance to reconstruct Iraq successfully than the current bunch do.

To withdraw the outside forces in Iraq would create a massive power vacum which would most likely cumlinate in civil war. We need some sort of military presence in Iraq at the moment in order to try to bring some sort of stability to Iraq, from which we can begin to make things better. Iraq was not a terrorist threat before, but the invasion of Iraq has turned it into one.

Which brings me to the part of the article that actually made me quite queasy

Blair and the newly cowed BBC absurdly describe those defending their own country as "terrorists" - as all colonialist and occupation forces have done

Sorry Mr Milne, but people who bomb mosques and UN headquarters are terrorists. No point apologizing for them or condoning them. By all means find out who they are but by the same token we cannot allow Iraq to wander into the hands of those who commit these acts. I cannot see how acts such as this can be described as "defending their own country".

[bemildred]

4. While I respect your argument, that we have a responsibility,

the notion that a Guerilla war of independence between outside
forces and the Iraqis is better than an Iraqi civil war to
establish their own political arrangements seems questionable.

[T_i_B]

6. No end to war?

Well even now we have violence between sunnis & shias in Iraq.The question is, how do we stop the violence? Hate to say this but I just cannot see a withdrawal of outside forces stopping the violence in Iraq. In all probbability such a move would allow the problems of Iraq to multiply unchecked.

Replacing the current US/UK force with a UN force would not instantly solve all of Iraq's problems but it would still be the least worst option IMHO.

[bemildred]

7. "how do we stop the violence?"

A good question. I would tend to agree a UN force tasked
to get an indigenous government in place and stabilized seems the
best bet, however even there I think the odds are bad, because of
the ethnic issues you raise.

A partition along ethnic lines might seem attractive, except it
will annoy certain of the neighbors, and one may expect disputes
over the division of the natural resources, water, oil, arable
land.

In other words I not sure one can stop the violence, at this point.
That is one of the reasons that the dismissal of Saddam's governing
apparatus was such a boneheaded thing to do, it is much easier to
take things apart than to put them together again.

In any case, I'm willing to agree with the UN idea, if it gets the
US out promptly, and one expects the Iraqis would too, on that basis,
so at least it would buy some time. However one must expect the
UN forces to be subject to the same sort of attacks that US forces
are now, possibly less intense, possible not, some of these fellows
are quite bloody-minded.

[Frances]

9. Are you saying that there is no difference

between Iraqis fighting the U.S. and Iraqis fighting a civil war?

The first difference is that U.S. men and women would not be killed in an Iraqi civil war.

The second difference is that U.S. taxpayer money would not be involved.

The third difference is that the Iraqis would be deciding their own fate without outside interference.

The fourth difference would be that the U.S. would not be creating a climate where thousands of people would like to get revenge by targeting the U.S.

[bemildred]

10. No, I said:

the notion that a Guerilla war of independence between outside
forces and the Iraqis is better than an Iraqi civil war to
establish their own political arrangements seems questionable.

It sounds like you and I agree somewhat, actually.

[Martin Eden]

5. Responsibility vs. Reality

The biggest question is whether the continuation of our military occupation will make things better in the long run.

If it won't, then the sooner we get out the better. If we were to bring the troops home now, yes there would be a power vacuum, and probably a civil war. It might degenerate into multiple spheres of power like the Afghan warlords.

But consider the possibility that prolonging the occupation will only postpone that inevitability, and that the only thing to be gained by dragging it out is the continued waste of lives and treasure and the further radicalization of Arabs in the ME who seethe at our presence.

Conventional wisdom dictates that we make every effort to leave Iraq with a functioning democracy and economy. This is no doubt the most difficult nation building task in history, and I might be inclined to accept that challenge except for one major problem -- the Bush administration is at the helm of this project. Their mismanagement so far is criminally inept, and they are so intent on holding on to their ill-gotten gains (Iraqi oil) that they are stiff-arming the nations that might be willing to help if not for the hubris and greed of shrubco.

My gut and my brain tell me we're looking at a long long-term occupation, very costly, and unsustainable. When we finally have had enough (after years of bloodshed and grief) the chaos will follow anyway.

Better to end it now.

[teryang]

8. Good points

Any regime we leave behind is going to be irrevocably tainted. Civil war is already underway. We cannot stop it. The notion that we can is pure delusion due in part to the desire to avoid the blame for a massive policy blunder. It is really hard to admit that your are wrong and that your mistakes have resulted in unnecessary deaths and mayhem and the wasting of incalculuable resources. So let's waste some more.

This is about control of resources and territory, it has nothing to do with utopian visions of democracy and enterprise. Why are we employing former members of Saddam's secret police? Because of their effectiveness in creating an environment suitable for democracy?

Our continuing occupation only assures the prolongation of the death and destruction. A central power will emerge after we leave unless we continue to participate in the civil war a la Afghanistan. I suspect that we will until we are driven out. Whatever death and destruction takes place after our forces leave is not the responsibility of the American people, it is the responsibility of the war criminals in our government who started the war.

After some domestic law and order emerges by indigenous processes (imposed by force), foreign corporations and organizations will be more than eager to come in and assist in rebuilding Iraq without the "protection" of American soldiers.