ANALYSIS-Arab Rulers' Worst Fears on Iraq Come True

[RedEarth]

George, you and your neo-cons friends got it all wrong, didn't you......you monster.



DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) - As U.S. forces battle on a new front in Iraq, Baghdad's Arab neighbors watch the escalating violence with alarm and a message that affords them only the grimmest satisfaction: "We told you so."

Arab leaders had said loudly and repeatedly that a U.S. war against Saddam Hussein would unleash chaos in multi-ethnic Iraq and the region and open a Pandora's box of radicalism.

With U.S.-led forces now battling Shi'ite Muslims in several cities, they now feel their ominous prophecy has come true.

The leaders fear that clashes between Shi'ites loyal to firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and occupation forces could lead to civil war -- and spill over their borders.

"This is what we've been warning about. We told the Americans Saddam Hussein was only five percent of the problem. The other 95 percent just wasn't visible to them," a Gulf Arab diplomat said. "It's a very dangerous situation. It's painful."

Qatar, a staunch U.S. ally, said it feared civil war could break out in Iraq and that the country was becoming a "fertile ground for (various) terrorists."

"The developments in Iraq are alarming and we fear that we are facing a civil war in Iraq like Afghanistan and Lebanon," Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said.

"We cannot leave Iraq in this state because this disease will spread and I believe the situation is out of control."

U.S. troops in Iraq, under attack for a year by Sunni Muslims and Saddam loyalists, now risk a major conflict with the Shi'ite majority. They had been seen as allies in their opposition to Saddam, who brutally suppressed them.



http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4775917

[Walt Starr]

1. TRANSLATION:

If these guys overthrow your asses, then our own peasantry will overthrow us!

[The Magistrate]

9. An Excellent Translation, Mr. Starr!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Junkdrawer]

18. WHEN, not IF.

The longer we stay, the more radicalized the region becomes. Once it reaches a critical mass, we simply do not have the troop strength to contain it, short of genocide.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. And then ...

To paraphrase Nixon, "Humiliating Defeat With Honor", a.k.a. turning tail and running away like a hornet-bit hound dog.

Thanks, Mr. Bush!

--bkl

[sniffa]

2. no, no, no

this is just a handfuL of freedom haters, who have no pLace in a freer democratic iraq. :eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

16. Just a few dead enders n/t

[David__77]

3. Maybe a wave of uprising will sweep away all these elites.

We can only hope that a secular progressive force will emerge to head it.

[theHandpuppet]

5. Can't say that most of these ruling houses...

... don't deserve to be thrown out on their collective asses, but there are other countries such as Jordan where the situation isn't quite so clear, eg, King Abdullah, who seems to be one of the more moderate voices in the region.

[The Stranger]

7. Actually, we are only beginning to understand what it is that "these

ruling houses" are sitting on, as you can see from this week's events. The Neocons would have us believe that Democracy is ready to spread through the Middle East, but the situation is far more complicated, and this is becoming a very painful lesson.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

22. The big lie...

One of them, anyway, was that Iraq would be the nucleus for a democratic middle east. They problem, of course, is that our Saudi "allies" have a tendency to publicly decapitate people who advocate for democratic reforms. Complicated, indeed!

[ewagner]

11. Agree for the most part

Things must change in the Middle East and there are two way in which it can take place: Evolution or Revolution.

Processes of change must take place slowly and diplomatically.

When I was in College, I read Something of Value concerning the revolution in the Congo in the '50s(things haven't changed much) but the point always stuck with me: You cannot dismantle a culture which is stable no matter how corrupt without having something of value to replace it with.

That's the glaring issue in Iraq right now. We have displaced a corrupt, brutal albeit stable regime and have offered nothing of value in return.

Until we solve that problem, we will experience death and chaos.

[Ilsa]

15. Totally excellent post!

People don't understand why it isn't working. You post explains why precisely. Thank you.

[ewagner]

19. *blush*

thank you!

[nolabels]

27. Except politcal changes, which usally take place very quickly

Execution of Louis XVI
21 January 1793



The head of Louis XVI is held up to the crowd
http://www.napoleonguide.com/pixs_execlouis.htm\

Pulling the Curtain down: An Introduction to the Role of the East German Protestant Church in the Peaceful Revolution of 1989
(at the bottom) (snip)
he Revolutions of 1989 are popularly described as having required ten years of struggle in Poland, ten weeks in Germany, ten days in Czechoslovakia and ten hours in Romania (Nielsen, p.6). Although this understates the struggle of resistors in many of these countries, the observation accurately describes the quickness of the political change that transformed Europe three years ago. As several commentators have documented, members of Christian churches - Protestant and Catholic — became key political actors in these historical events. In the case of East Germany, the Church conducted dialogue between citizens and the government, assuming the role of speaking up for the voiceless in the former Volksrepublik or “People’s Republic.” Church and lay leaders also organized mass demonstrations, emphasizing the necessity of non—violent protest and the virtue in following Christ’s example. Churches also sheltered diverse activist groups, who later led protests, developed, and articulated the ideological basis of the people’s protests. The Church was the main institution to provide an alternative worldview to the Marxist ideology that the Communists preached in the schools, in the workplace and in mandatory indoctrination sessions. Niels Nielson summarizes the fundamental conflict between church and state in the former East German society like this:



…it must be said that the stereotype of a group of steadfast true believers giving unqualified prophetic witness against a brutal system is all too easily invoked. Such situations existed, and there were faithful martyrs, but the larger problem was the conflict between religion and culture, church and state in the Communist setting. Religion is a social phenomenon, not simply a matter of individual belief. It exists in community. Even religious communities that were compromised under communism stood apart from totalitarianism, challenging it. The continued life of the churches in spite of state control indicated that Marxist atheism had not won fully… ‘Tearing down the curtain’ was not just the work of movements and ideas; it happened because courageous men and women resisted apathy and fear (Nielsen. p.9).



Stephen Lazarus

April 6, 1992
(snip)
http://thebigpicture.homestead.com/files/m2m3p29.htm

[ewagner]

29. thanks for the article

Interesting .... will give me something to think about also.

[Just Me]

28. Very well-stated point!!! What are the "values" we brought to them?

Jobs?

NO.

Participation?

NO.

Stability?

NO.

Hope?

NOT.

[daleo]

6. While we are at it, we can hope for the Easter Bunny

I think the chances of the two eventualities are about the same.

[David__77]

10. You're right about the secular progressive part, but not the uprising part

The situation of some of these governments is pretty fragile, but nothing falls into you hit it.

[robertpaulsen]

36. Didn't you hear the news?

The Easter Bunny just got crucified in Pennsylvania. :)

[aquart]

12. Secular progressive force?

In the Middle East? We had one. Saddam. Secular. Progressive (for a Muslim country). Force (and lots of it).

Unlike the neocons, I know damn well that their vision of a country modeled on our government (like we did to conquered Japan) is a delusion.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Absolutely correct.

With the exception of Israel, the people of Middle Eastern countries not only don't want democracy, they don't even know what it is. Trying to force it on them will not work. It's like trying to herd cats, which obviously are not herd creatures.

Damnation to these Bushies. They have put us in a very difficult situation; it is only going to get much worse.

[saigon68]

21. Like trying to Herd Capitalist Corporation Owners

You can only HERD the workers----like SHEEP </sarcasm>

[Just Me]

30. Well,...western "democracy" seems rather deceptive, anyway,...

,...since we don't really have a "democracy" at all. These days, I have trouble pinning down WHAT form of government we have left of a democratic republic,...but I know FOR SURE,...it ain't no democracy.

[David__77]

20. Nasser was a secular progressive, but not in the Western mould.

Assad of Syria is secular and has some progressive policies. These are not "Western democratic" figures. But I would hope that Arab nationalism and secularism would regain some initiative. I certainly don't advoate forcing the Western model onto Arab sovereign nations.

[hel]

31. Turkey is secular.

And secularity is a part of Turkish constitution that cannot be changed, or ever proposed to be changed.

Turkish democracy is in European model. Although far from perfect, and still under heavy influence of the Turkish Army -which has the traditional role of protecting secularism-; it still works better than all Muslim countries.

[iam]

13. In the Middle East?

Liberals in the ME? Too much religion. Too much conservatism. It's like hoping Uganda can build a rocket ship to Mars. Maybe in a hundred years or so.

[davhill]

4. Not only Arabs

Lots of us were saying the same thing and are choking back I told you so's.

[opihimoimoi]

8. Rationalization does funny things to Pubs Brains making them Morans.

Its become contagious,

Then a funny thing happened: The Pubs are in control of the Gov't.

Look at the evidence,

[Ilsa]

14. Brent Scowcroft told GHWB the same thing 1991:

Quote:
"Arab leaders had said loudly and repeatedly that a U.S. war against Saddam Hussein would unleash chaos in multi-ethnic Iraq and the region and open a Pandora's box of radicalism."

And that was why it didn't happen in '91. Too bad Shrub is too THICK to understand this until it's happening before his eyes (on tv).

[lanlady]

23. the Arab states did nothing to prevent this!

All they did was cluck their tongues, while behind the scenes they were probably planning to grab Iraqi wealth for themselves. And now they have no solutions to offer. The Arab rulers who let this happen are only slightly less disgusting and culpable than the Busheviks.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. true

Sad to say but the whole world lacks leadership right now.

[On the Road]

26. "Nothing to Prevent This"?

What were they going to do except oppose it?

[hel]

32. Arab states rarely agree on anything

other than they all love their money and would rather keep their income no matter what, thank you very much.

[Voltaire99]

33. Not exactly

You chide governments that have very tenuous holds on leadership along with military strength that pales alongside that of Israel, let alone the United States. Most of them are run by vicious aristocrats beholden as much to military rule as to Washington's indulgence for their survival. Others who are less pliable are under constant threat from the US (or, as in the case of Syria, subject to US-Israeli interference). The 20th century effort to subjugate the Middle East as a vassal of western energy needs has borne this bitter fruit.

So it's not as simple as saying they "let this happen." Having no choice is not "letting something happen." Look at Europe. Much more powerful nations--indeed all the nations of the world together--were powerless to stop the US from invading Iraq. Even the citizens of western nations who overwhelmingly opposed the invasion were unable to stop their governments participating, as in Spain and elsewhere.

Bottom line: it ain't called an Empire for nothing.

[Barkley]

34. "We cannot leave Iraq in this state..." Oh yes we can!

That's the same thing 'they' kept saying about Viet Nam; if we leave the communists will come to power and the dominos will fall across Asia.
So we've got to stay.

They were wrong then and they are wrong now!

Our staying is making the situation worse; WE are the source of the instability not the Iraqis, or Al Qaeda or the "Saddam Loyalists".

America IS the problem!

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

[fizzana]

35. And meanwhile, our media and the talking heads on our media

are still seeing this as a short term military problem that can be overcome.

How incredibly naive.