|
Even if among the occupied, some (confused, disoriented, naively optimistic) initially thought the foreigners might bring liberation, these must now conclude---through harsh experience---that liberation is not conferred but rather won. The Mahdi Army cannot, in my view, really liberate anyone with its fundamentalist religious agenda, and this, perhaps, many of its adherents will come to understand. But for the time being, it presents the imperialists with their thorniest challenge. The warriors of this jihad know that their countrymen will desert, or defect to themselves, rather than serve the infidels in Najaf. The original sin of the occupation is that it is, after all, an occupation. Worse, one based on lies. Justified after the fact, after the bogus rationales were all discredited, by the boast, "We overthrew a dictator," the occupation now faces the jihadis' charge that it is worse even than Saddam. (The occupier puzzles at the charge. Aren't we rebuilding schools? he thinks, not realizing that Iraq once had the finest school system in the Arab world, and small need for its reconstruction---until somebody, for reasons some think worth it, damaged it and so much else.)
The invasion left Iraq with a number of bad choices, but currently the bad choice seems to be between continued colonial government under puppets like Allawi or an Islamic republic. Democracy is not at present an option.
Leaving Saddam where he was would have been another bad choice, although one that would not have complicated American requirements in the war on terror.
It is possible, even likely, that Iraq would have faced civil strife following Saddam's passing the scene. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to say that the drama would have played out exactly the same as it is. After all, in a more natural world, American troops would not be in the country trying to tell Iraqis who is best to govern them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
