|
May 31, 2004
The US neo-con language of democratization and development situates America as the humanitarian liberators of the Arabs from the authoritarian oppression of Saddam Hussein and other dictators in the Middle East. Iraq would be the beacon light of democracy and reason, which would spread across the Arab world.
This is part of the neo-con's broader regional strategy to ensure regime change in Syria and Iran. Currently the US is endeavouring to squeeze Syria economically and isolate it politically in order to force Syria to changes its ways: to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon, abandon the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, stop supporting terrorism and stop supporting the Palestinians. Syria is defined as the problem in the region and regime change means overthrowing the government of President Bashar Al Assad. Syria is held to be a "terrorist state" run by an "irrational" and fascist regime.
It is probably about time that the broad regional strategy of the US in the Midlde East is questioned.
At the moment the democratic liberal language of the US is being deployed as part of a broader, concerted strategy to turn Iraq into a dependent and docile American client. At the moment the paternalistic role is being played by the provisional Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in which the US props up and trusts the exiles, but exercises control over Iraq through the instruments of budgets and security.
This can be seen as a continuation of the history of the colonial administrators of the inter-war French and British Mandates exerting a tremendous amount of power over Iraqi institutions and agencies.
Steve Bell
It is said that this kind of neo-colonial occupation will change on June 30th, with the handover of sovereignty. I cannot see how the on-the-ground situation after-June 30 is likely to be better than the situation on the ground pre-June 30--– do you?
It does look as if the exit strategy is a continuation of the modern form of colonialism? This kind of exit strategy would mean that the Iraqis are given sovereignty over their oil resources as long as that sovereignty does not interfere in the American strategic access to those resources. The limitation of Iraqi sovereignty----quasi-colonial regime with little domestic legitimacy---- would mean that any Iraqi leader who cooperates will again be viewed as a servant of American strategic interests. This kind of political authority does not look a promising way to deal with the ethic regions of a quasi-independent-Kurdish state, a Sunni Triangle dominated by ex-Baathist generals and a Shi’ite south coming under Iranian influence and control.
So the liberalism promised to Iraqi's by the US has an alternative face of neo-colonialism, political instability, social and cultural dislocations and economic hardship. The situation is bad. The modern face of western colonialism will lead to the further radicalization of Iraqi society. This Iraqi insurgency will increasingly acquire an explicitly Islamist character, not to an increasing secular society. It is already accelerating recruitment to the ranks of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
'Tis time for Australia to face the political realities. That means dumping the neo-con illusions wrapped around Centcom's Operation Iraqi Freedom that have been accepted by the Howard Government. A searching account of the connection between political realities and failure for the US is given by Billmon over at Whiskey Bar. I've relied on some of that excellent material and links for this post.
|
Gary,
Mixed feelings. I think that sums it up for me. The sheer delight in seeing that the crazy stupid Bush adventure is unravelling as expected, not in the detail mind, but the broad course of events, is wrenched by a terrible feeling that something terrible is happening.
Billmon is right. Success is not an Option. I commented on this at John Quiggin's . Back in early April I saw that nothing would work to bring the desired peace.
The reality that needs to be faced is that there will most likely be chaos, and so the best thing to do is for the US to swallow its pride, and withdraw into the deserts, let the civil war begin if it must, (or maybe with luck it will let the Iraqi's feel some sense of victory, and organise themselves if they can) and then try to secure a deal (or re-engage militarily) with the eventual leaders or victors when it becomes apparent who they are.
It is not possible for the US to make a dignified exit. A smart Administration will realise this, and be prepared to sacrifice their dignity as collateral damage sustained in the least worse exit strategy.
I think Billmon puts its well. Now that the mainstream media has cottoned onto what a complete disaster it is, and finally caught up to the blogs, the role of the blogs is to speculate where this mess will likely lead us in a years time.