Is this too late? Has the damage already been done? Will changing tactics at this point undo it?


Story

IMO the tactic won't work. Looks like the US military is having their own Gaza Strip there. If they fight the terrorists they'll get retaliated. Yet if they just gather intelligence, they'll still get attacked. If they leave Iraq, they'll look like they lost and a running coward. The US might be in it for the long run. Geez, I feel for our troops and their family.

Yep. The damage has already been done to the non-terrorist, non-resistance Iraqi's who have been treated in a fashion that is insulting according to their customs, culture and traditions. Iraqis have been complaining for months about this kind of stuff, so I doubt changing tactics his late in the game is going to temper another cultural trait-revenge, but it may help. I hope it helps for the sake of the troops and the innocents caught in the crossfire.

Maybe it's time to put an effort in rebuilding the country, make sure everyone has water, electricity and food. Maybe that will cool things down and losen up some tongues ?

What a novel concept. To be fair a big effort is in place to restore these basic needs, perhaps a bigger effort is what is neccessary.

You know what always cracks me up, is that Wolfowitz,Cheney, and the other neocons have been planning the overthrow of Saddam since 1998, but they never made plans for what to do afterwards.

What a novel concept. To be fair a big effort is in place to restore these basic needs, perhaps a bigger effort is what is neccessary. </font>[/QUOTE]Kinda hard to rebuild while dodging bullets. I do have to question the large effort put into finding Saddam and his cohorts, though. It almost seems like that's a much bigger priority than helping to rebuild the lives of the Iraqis.

<font color="#C4C7D7">
I don't think that the US is in a "Die if you do and die if you don't" type situation. There are two options that the US administration could follow to remove itself without loss of face.

The first one is known to all: hand over full control (military and civilian) to the UN and pull out the US troops in favour of UN ones - plenty of countries have stated their willingness to send troops with UN authorisation, more than enough to do the job in fact.

However, the UN is not the only international organisation that carries enough legitimacy in the middle east to be able to assume power over Iraq during its transition to a democracy. And perverse as it may seem, the US probably has more friends in this organisation than it has in the UN: </font>

Article published in: Dar Al Hayat "Only the Arabs Can Save Iraq - and Save America from a New Vietnam!"
In a strongly-worded speech this week, President George W. Bush vowed that America would 'stay on the offensive' in Iraq. 'As long as terrorism and its allies plot to harm America, America is at war,' he declared. But behind this tough talk, there is growing anxiety. The United States is beginning to realize that the task of pacifying and reconstructing Iraq may well be beyond America's resources. With American troops facing almost daily attacks from a hostile population, the situation in Iraq is already being described as, potentially, a new Vietnam. In American opinion, the latest polls suggest that support for the occupation is fast fading. The cries of victory which accompanied the fall of Saddam Hussein have fallen silent, and the question now being asked in Washington is: Does the U.S. have an exit strategy?

With its own forces spread thin and needing to be rotated, the U.S. has asked some 70 countries for troop contributions. Only 10 have so far responded, and small contingents from countries like Poland, or even larger numbers from India, are unlikely to make much of a difference. As Carl Levin, a senior Democratic senator, concluded after a fact-finding visit to Iraq, the current level of U.S. troops would be needed 'for a number of years.'

But why troops from Poland and not from Egypt, say? Why India and not Morocco? It is time for an 'Arab solution' to an Arab crisis. Should not the Arabs wake up to their responsibilities in their own backyard? Over the past several months, Arab feelings have fluctuated wildly in response to the unfolding tragedy. At first, as the debates continued in the UN Security Council, and as France, Germany and Russia voiced their opposition to American policy, many Arabs clung to the hope that war could be avoided and that a diplomatic solution could somehow be found. Then came the great shock of the American and British attack in March, the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government, and the occupation of Iraq. The shock at the popular level was all the greater because of the complicity of some Arab regimes with the invasion, the evident impotence of others, and Baghdad's own perplexingly-swift collapse. Many Arabs felt that the long years of anti-colonial struggle between the world wars, and their post-war experience of independence, suddenly counted for nothing and were wiped out of the history books! Once again, as in 1920, the 'land of the two rivers' was overrun by Western armies and subject to foreign military rule.

Today, the hit-and-run attacks against Coalition troops have become a source of some national pride, resulting in a modest revival of Arab self-esteem after the painful humiliations of recent months. But, for all the agitation of the Arab street, Arab leaders seem lethargic spectators of this Arab catastrophe, without actively considering that it is now urgent to play an active role.


A role for the Arab League?

It is fashionable, mainly in the Gulf these days, to deride the Arab League and dismiss it as a toothless body. Crippled by feuds of its member states, it issues statements and passes resolutions, which are rarely implemented. But this is as unfair as it is inexact. The League, which traces its origins back to 1944-45, is the sole political expression of the fact that the Arabs are one family, united even today by far more than divides them. I happen to believe, as a long-time student of the areas, that the League, under its secretary-general Amro Moussa, a man of exceptional talents and experience, can play a major role in the present crisis. I remember that when the Iraqi leader, Abdul-Karim Qasim, threatened to seize Kuwait in 1961, the Kuwaitis asked British troops to deter him. But, very shortly afterwards, Britain handed over the task to an Arab League force, resolving the crisis in that manner.

In Iraq today, one of the key problems is security. Until security is restored, there can be no reconstruction, either political or economic. But far from improving, the security situation is getting worse by the day. Paul Bremer, the American administrator of the country, has blamed the attacks on 'terrorists with connections to Iran, Al Qaeda and other countries in the region.' Other senior American officials appear to believe that the elusive Saddam Hussein is behind the mounting resistance, and that once he is captured or killed, calm will be restored. But such analysis is mistaken. The Saddam era is over. There is no widespread support for its restoration. The attacks are the work of Iraqi patriots, angry at the destruction of their country, enraged by America's heavy-handed policing, frustrated by its inability to restore basic services, and anxious above all to take their destiny into their own hands - something the U.S. seems reluctant to do, despite its 'democracy' slogans!


An Arab force in Iraq

The Arabs must be involved in the rebuilding of this major Arab state. No one else can, or should, do the job. It is perfectly possible to imagine the deployment, under Arab League auspices, of 100,000 Arab troops, with contingents from, say, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Egypt would be well placed to take overall military command, with the U.S. and the European Union providing funding and logistical support.

An Arab force in Iraq would be far more acceptable to the local population than American and British troops, and would be better able to undertake the two key security tasks which are, first, reconstructing Iraqi police and security services (as Egypt and Jordan are now helping the Palestinians to do); and secondly, restoring law and order throughout the country. Political reconstruction should be left to the Iraqis, and only to them. Economic reconstruction should be under the control and guidance of the United Nations, with funds and expertise provided by all the leading industrial nations, not only the U.S. and Britain. If such a programme were adopted, future problems and dangers could well be avoided.

Some colonial arrogance - and a reluctance to appear to be running away - might prevent Washington and London from accepting such an 'Arab solution.' But it would be both sensible and statesmanlike for them to consider it seriously. The Coalition could claim the credit of having rid Iraq of a brutal dictator without facing the present charge of imperialism.

As things stand at present, the Americans could face a situation in Iraq even more difficult than in Vietnam. In Vietnam, they had partners fighting on their side. They had a client state, a client local leadership, a client army. In Iraq, they have none of these things. Having destroyed the state, they find themselves friendless and isolated. Their situation now resembles that of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, but on an even vaster scale. Already, there are brutal U.S. echoes in Iraq of Israeli tactics in the lethal raids, the use of informers, the mass arrests and harsh interrogations - tactics, which corrupt both the American occupier and the Iraqi occupied. An Iraqi cleric was quoted this week as saying that when the Americans arrest someone, 'they put a bag on his head, handcuff him, and leave him lying in the sun for two hours.' This is what Israel does to the Palestinians. It is hardly the way to be accepted or respected.

The Arabs do not want more colonial experience. Iraq, once the most advanced of Arab states, is the least likely to accept long-term foreign occupation. Even individuals and groups who welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein have grown impatient at American delays in handing over power to an interim Iraqi administration.

Washington and London should begin immediate negotiations with leading Arab states, and with the Arab League secretary general, with a view to placing responsibility for Iraq in Arab hands. The benefits for all sides would be immediate. The killing and wounding of American and British troops would come to an end. Formidable Iraqi energies would be released and harnessed to the reconstruction of their country. Arab differences over the war would be healed, and so would the rift between the U.S. and leading European states. The Arabs as a whole would feel empowered and their self-respect restored. The Americans, concerned with the threat from terrorism and with the current wave of anti-Americanism throughout the world, would find their reputation and authority enhanced. Putting an end to their imperial project in Iraq - and insisting on a just settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict - are the only ways to achieve security for their troops, their citizens and their interests. They should remember that the longer they stay in Iraq, the more difficult it will be to extract themselves with dignity or honour.

[ 08-08-2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]