• US policy failure for 60 years - Rice

There was a feature tonight on ABC Lateline about Condoleezza Rice making a public statement in Cairo  - I just took some rough notes. She said something like:

US has pursued a policy of stability at the expense of democracy for the past 60 years - this policy was a failure and we now pursue a different policy

I've done some searches on the internet to get the full transcript but can't find anything right now, I suppose it will be up in a few hours time. Lateline will reprint their transcript and video but that's not available yet either.

At any rate, this is what we have been saying that the US policy represents for some years now - a 180 degree reversal of their previous policy.

This was followed by a long interview with US critic Robert Fisk who was very negative about the prospects of democracy in the Middle East because the West had created all the problems, that the US didn't want real democracy because that  might lead to Islamic states, etc.

Fisk with his reflexive anti Americanism just didn't want to acknowledge or understand the implications of Rices statement so he went on and on about how hard it would be to achieve democracy. Well, Robert Fisk, why do you think Rice said what she said, she didn't have to say it?

I find it perplexing that the opponents of the war cannot take on board the explicit change in strategic thinking that Rice expressed at Cairo (and that Bush expressed earlier).

 

First of all: here is the text to Rice's Cairo speech: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48328.htm#democracy  

 

I think the anti-war leaders automatically dismiss any talk of a reversal of US foreign policy because they instinctively don't believe anything that is said by any US administration, especially a Republican one. They go on instinct and reflex, not logic and analysis of reality.

 

In my experience, on the few occasions when I've made the above point to friends who support the anti-war movement, they suggest that the US is trying to pull the wool over the world's eyes with a view to intensifying oppression in the middle east. When I point out that such words as those expressed by Rice would not endear the US to the tyrants in the region who really are oppressing the people, they respond along these lines: 'Oh come on! It's just Vietnam all over again'. There's no real interest in debating the issue.

 

The most positive shift I've noticed comes from some friends who were very opposed to the war in 2003, and who still oppose it in principle, but who now express genuine hope that a new democratic Iraq can be built.

 

Ultimately, the Fisks and Alis and Pilgers won't matter. A democratic Iraq will emerge, and the conditions in the region will improve for the people. Progress will be made on the Israel-Palestine issue, too, despite all the negativity from the predictable quarters. 

 

It's unlikely that the anti-war leaders could rally so many people again on this war.

 

Barry   

 

 

 

 

Here is some of the now available Fisk Lateline interview.

He's saying that it's too hard to achieve democracy in the Middle East because of the imperialist legacy:

"we are anchored in history"....
"our kind of democracy - one man, one vote or one woman, one vote or whatever you like to say - simply largely cannot take root"...
"we've created in Lebanon, for example, a totally sectarian society"...
"Lebanon, like all the states in the Middle East, is artificial. It was created by us, and it is a tribal state, as is Iraq" ...
"You cannot ask the Arabs to separate themselves from history, because they live it today."

You would think therefore that he ought to welcome Condoleezza Rice's admission that US policy for the past 60 years had failed. But no. In my opinion his world view is totally pessimistic and backward looking. Problems are too hard to overcome so lets just wallow in misery and self pity and go on and on about how hard and impossible progress is to achieve. I once used to admire Robert Fisk for his erudition about the Middle East.  I now still see him as knowledgable but just hopelessly stuck in his own historical rut.

TONY JONES: How do you know, though, that a new breed, just as in Lebanon - you're talking about these young people coming back from many years in the West and changing the way things are done in a country. How do you know that a new breed of young Democrats might not take root and even take heart from these kind of statements in Egypt and in fact right through the Middle East?

ROBERT FISK: Look, it's nice and it would be lovely to contemplate that this was the case, and I would personally like to see that. I'd love to see democracies all over the Middle East. But the fact of the matter is that we are anchored into history - the Ottoman Empire; the British and French mandates that followed the First World War - and we have created these patriarchal societies in which democracy, our kind of democracy - one man, one vote or one woman, one vote or whatever you like to say - simply largely cannot take root. We have created in Lebanon, for example - there was democracy here, by the way, before the war; we didn't invent this now. But we've created in Lebanon, for example, a totally sectarian society. You cannot be the President of Lebanon unless you're a Christian Maronite. You cannot be the Prime Minister unless you're a Sunni Muslim. You cannot be the Speaker of Parliament unless you're a Shiite Muslim. But we don't mention this. We talk about democracy. But this is not a modern state. Lebanon, like all the states in the Middle East, is artificial. It was created by us, and it is a tribal state, as is Iraq, as we now know, as is Syria, which is governed by Alawites, which is the Shiite sect where the majority are Sunni. We are not setting up the framework for democracy here. What we are doing is we continue to support the largest tribes while claiming that we want human rights and more proportional representation. What you've got in Lebanon, for example, is proportional sectarianism, which is what, if you look at the electoral lists of the last four weeks, has been created. It's a free vote, but you have to vote for your tribe.

TONY JONES: All right. We're nearly out of time, I'm afraid to say, because we'd like to talk about this a lot more, but can't you unmake history? I mean, you talk about not setting up the framework..

ROBERT FISK: Ah, look, you cannot escape from history.

TONY JONES: ..for democracy to take place, but why can't you set up those frameworks?

ROBERT FISK: It doesn't work like that. Look, history - I will be very brief; I know you're running out of time. History for us is easy to cut off from. End of the Second World War, end of Nazism; new world, European Union, Commonwealth - you say what you like. But in the Middle East, people continue to suffer from history. The Palestinians in the refugee camps of Saba and Shakila, which are scarcely 2.5 miles from where I'm speaking, they still look back and say that the Balfour declaration, which was Britain's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, is what drove them into exile. They lived the Balfour declaration, which was made in 1917, last night, one hour before. You cannot ask the Arabs to separate themselves from history, because they live it today.

It's not that we can't "take on board the explicit change in strategic thinking" its that when Rice reiterated it the minister from Saudi Arabia laughed.

Well done last superpower you guys predicted the change in strategic thinking and as an out look I prefer the US talking about democracy rather than stability however I see no more likely-hood of success than when America invaded Canada.

The US cant win in Iraq, there is no military victory, as more fighting generates more resistance. Leaked CIA analysis reveals that Iraq is providing a better training ground for terrorists than Afganistan did.

There is no "train the Iraqi army solution", proponents of this view talk in terms of years. This strategy is flawed because the recruits are Shia and Kurds there will never be peace if the army contains no Sunnis.

That leaves a negotiated settlement. The trouble is that the Sunni have been the rulers for centuries its hard to see them negotiating a secondary position to those apostates to the same degree that it is unthinkable for Irish prods.

It's a hugh ask for America to transform the mid east I'd be more confident if they could engineer even a small change say secure the Iraqi borders, they waste all that breath on Syria when in all probability Saudi Arabia has the most insecure border. Im not asking for big miracles like a Saudi democracy what about women being allowed to drive. What do you think the ruling Sunni minority in Bahrain think about being democratic with the Shia majority.

I'd just like to reiterate a point that I made about a year ago. The US transformed Germany and Japan into democracies but these countries were disciplined homogenious societies. What would have happened if they had been fractious multi ethnic tribal societies with a religion that meant the occupiers were the agents of Satan himself  

 

 

Owenss says: "It's not that we can't "take on board the explicit change in strategic thinking" its that when Rice reiterated it the minister from Saudi Arabia laughed".

 

I can't accept your certainty that the Saudi minister has had the last laugh; that there's no hope, which is what you seem to be saying.

 

Having accepted that there is in fact a shift in US strategic thinking, what do you think should happen now? This is an oft-repeated question to 'defeatists' on Iraq. Should the next round of elections take place in Iraq? Is the federal constitution, which I believe offers the only way of solving the ethnic rivalries, worth pursuing or not?

 

The hard-line anti-war people that I know simply don't believe there's a shift in US strategy, so it kind of follows logically that they oppose the war. But having accepted the reality of the shift, how can you then continue to oppose the US-led military coalition? The Iraqi security forces are clearly not ready yet to defend the sovereignty of the emerging democratic Iraq. A withdrawal will not stop the 'resistance' but encourage it. Don't forget they're not just out to end military occupation but to restore Ba'athist rule. (Okay, it's more complicated than that, but the anti-US forces are united by an opposition to democratic elections and the federal constitution).

 

Barry  

 

  

Owenss / Steve wrote:

“…when Rice reiterated it the minister from Saudi Arabia laughed.”

I don’t understand this; are you saying the U.S. is laughable; or Bush, and Rice; or the idea of democracy taking root in the Middle East soon or generally; or Saudi Arabia specifically or…what?  I didn’t see it, but exactly what does his laughter mean to you?

“The US cant win in Iraq, there is no military victory, as more fighting generates more resistance.”   

If the goal of this war was what the anti-war movement thought it was, the above comment would be correct.  However, as oil is not the issue, and neither is any other reason put forward from the anti-war side of the debate, and because there is now a clear path to Iraq’s total independence, there is very little genuine resistance to the occupation forces.  So, as far as wars of this scale go, this is pretty low level conflict.  

Incidentally, the resistance of WW2 was the correct term for that war.  The term rings of honour, and the totally reasonable demands that underpinned the actions of those heroes.  So, the media have had to shy away from using the term Iraqi resistance, and resort to the term insurgency.  Only the likes of Pilger and Fisk etc still talk of resistance.

 

Some of the Sunni peoples’ are involved in an insurgency, and to the extent that they have political demands that are negotiable, then there will be negotiations.  However the attacks against other Iraqi’s, is mostly by organizations and individuals (commonly from other countries) that have no negotiable position.  There is simply a fight to be won as there is nothing to talk about. These latter sorts are correctly termed terrorists, and as they are fish without water, must be defeated reasonably quickly, as the Iraqi forces develop the specialist skills to do it.  As with any work, most of the learning, after basic training, is done on the job. 

Iraqi’s, will learn to make their democratic revolution while they make it.  The U.S. can’t win, unless the Iraqi peoples’ win and that ought to be obvious!  We have argued this from before the beginning of this war.  Bourgeois democracies the world over are now getting behind the new Iraq because there is nothing else to be done.  It was always going to end with a humiliating defeat for the French and Germans etc. After the next series of elections in Iraq the ‘anti-war forces’, will simply have nothing coherent to say going forward.  

 

Even Rumsfeld knows the U.S. can’t win; but that the war will be won by the Iraqi democratic coalition, and the U.S. has an exit strategy, and can tolerate the casualties it will (unfortunately) take.  But there is the danger, such that it is, to the new U.S. policy direction.  Rightwing and ‘left’ foreign policy experts and pundits within the U. S. attempting to hold back and divert or weaken U. S resolve.  They are making good progress discrediting the war and reducing public support. They could win and reverse direction, but I doubt it.

 

As Iraqi forces are built-up and go into action, the war moves from one stage to another.  The U.S. forces will hand more areas and tasks over to the locals, and unfortunately, draw-down more troops to boost the home-front confidence.  They will still have enough troops to concentrate larger numbers of the remaining forces against a shrinking number of opponents.  So that means they will continue to become relatively stronger.  

 

This is a new type of revolutionary war, and the world is on a steep learning-curve.  But Iraqi democratic forces are already big, and getting bigger, while the enemy is small, and getting smaller, so the word quagmire (that is constantly in the media) is totally inappropriate.

 

Meanwhile, the peoples of this region, and the world are going to be stuck with hunting medievalist terrorists down, and capturing, or killing them, for quite some years yet. So, we all better get used to it.  However, given the pace the world is moving at, and the age profile of the Middle-Eastern populations and how quickly young people can change - I don’t think many terrorists, will make it into the latter half of this century because massive failure will not encourage many to copy the method.  Leaving aside, long term speculations, history has given our generations the task to get on with, like it or not. 

So, a genuine left united with others will support both hunting down the terrorist mosquitoes, and work away at draining the swamp!  Neither task could be neglected.  The yanks, call it walking, and chewing gum.  Condoleeza Rice is clearly involved in a diplomatic and political offensive that has no real prospect of being directly resisted.  For example, the world’s media has drawn the spotlight onto Zimbabwe, and intervention by Africans, led by South African troops, would be a far better outcome than doing nothing.  I think the world is beginning to get used to overthrowing tyrants.

 

The Iraqi elections, (and the clearly independent and undoubtedly determined government that emerged) and the ongoing process of creating a constitution, and further elections, demonstrates that the Iraq war is about liberating the Iraqi peoples.

 

To quote from myself, written just after the last U.S. presidential election;

 

The U.S.-People, will not allow their ruling-class, to endlessly ship body-bags home.  That is why the U.S., ruling-elite, must empower the Iraqi people.  The Iraqi people will live in Iraq forever; the U.S., forces, will go home very soon.  Most of the war will be done by the end of Bush’s term; but there can be no short-cuts to building the democratic army; and a political structure that can do the job that we internationalists support.  It will be an Iraqi victory against the Baathists; and other Terrorists.  The U.S. forces will provide the ‘external heat’ only. 

 

Actually, if these internal forces didn’t exist then the U.S. ruling-elite, would be trying to turn a rock into a chicken.  To paraphrase Mao; it is that which is internal to the egg that allows the external application of temperature; which over a period, quantifies as the heat; such that the accumulated heat, would turn an egg, a ‘mere’ potential, into a chicken. No amount of heat, or temperature, would hatch a rock.

 

If the Iraqi people could be relied on to overthrow Saddam themselves, (As many supposedly left anti-war people assured us) then turning their country into a democratic chook ought to be a cake walk!

 

The former U.S., Middle-Eastern policy is defeated.  The U.S. elite are forced to stop blocking-the-drains in some countries, and have to simultaneously undo some of their own dirty work that created, or at least sustained the swamp in the first place. They are doing this in Iraq; and Afghanistan.  So, anti-war people see the U.S.-ruling-elite as having the agency. 

The U.S.ruling-elite are responding as a matter of little choice to events that were not of their direct-making.  The on-going struggle for democracy, of the Kurd’s; or the Palestinian’s; or the masses of other democratically minded peoples within the region, are now being ignored, by what remains of the anti-war movement; merely because the U.S., plans to support them!?

Personally, I think an internal overthrow was not even looking like being a starter; but turning Iraq into a democracy; well, this is a horse called self-interest, so get your money on it!

 

I am satisfied that this process is still in full swing and the more people talk of quagmire the more they want to divert attention from their inability to produce a coherent alternative, and they are just whinging that the war is harder and longer and more bloody than they would have wanted.  In short, so what?

“Leaked CIA analysis reveals that Iraq is providing a better training ground for terrorists than Afganistan did.” 

I remind you that there are two sides to every revolution, and Iraq is also providing a better training ground for revolutionary democrats.  I’ll back the latter, against the former any day.  Analysts should learn to play the piano with two hands, and all ten fingers!

If the CIA were right about this, and I have no reason to doubt it, then you ought to be dusting off Mao’s books on protracted war, and having a good think about what his material has to offer the progressive united-front that is a reality in Iraq. (just as there is a tiny second united-front that is fracturing as we speak; as it does little more than attack the vast majority of the Iraqi people and kill a few thousand U.S. troops).

 

“There is no "train the Iraqi army solution", proponents of this view talk in terms of years. This strategy is flawed because the recruits are Shia and Kurds there will never be peace if the army contains no Sunnis.” 

 

Thus, you ought to conclude that the wise leadership of the new Iraq will ensure that the armed forces of the new Iraq will contain Sunni’s, just as they will be involved in framing the constitution, and just as they will partake in the next elections and so forth.  Have confidence in the Iraqi people and their ability, through armed struggle, to triumph over all reactionaries that would attempt to stand in the way of the democratic revolution and you won’t go far wrong.  You are looking at a temporary appearance and not at an unfolding and developing process. 

 

“That leaves a negotiated settlement. The trouble is that the Sunni have been the rulers for centuries its hard to see them negotiating a secondary position to those apostates to the same degree that it is unthinkable for Irish prods.” 

 

Yet, the world still moves, and civil rights have moved on a long way in Ireland!  The Sunni peoples are not one united force, so it’s hard not to believe that the vast majority of them will negotiate for their rights as part of a democratic Iraq.

 

“It's a hugh ask for America to transform the mid east I'd be more confident if they could engineer even a small change say secure the Iraqi borders, they waste all that breath on Syria when in all probability Saudi Arabia has the most insecure border. Im not asking for big miracles like a Saudi democracy what about women being allowed to drive. What do you think the ruling Sunni minority in Bahrain think about being democratic with the Shia majority.”

 

That is the way the U.S. ruling-elite would have people think of the problems, but if we look at it from a left perspective, it’s not such a huge task for the people of the Middle East assisted by the U.S.   Country after country is stirring, and we have the example of the former East European, Police-States, and their transformation over the last twenty five years.    

 

Have a read of The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains (June 11, 1945)

 

The biggest impediment to the peoples of the Middle East making their bourgeois democratic revolution’s, has for the last sixty years been the rotten U.S. policies.  Dumping them is the biggest single problem out of the way.  The weight of the U.S. is now on the opposite side of the scales, and this is a huge change for the better.

 

“…For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people”

 

 

“What would have happened if they (Germany and Japan) had been fractious multi ethnic tribal societies with a religion that meant the occupiers were the agents of Satan himself “  

 

The answer is that things would have taken longer to achieve!

 

Things are much better now, than when the anti-war movement were so confident that they knew what was going on, and were out on the streets chanting “No Blood for Oil.” 

 

 It will get better still with the next elections.   

 

Patrick.

Hi Pat youve asked me a number of questions so I thought that I would reply

 

Is the US laughable? yes

 

Is Bush and Rice laughable? yes

 

Is the idea of democracy in Saudi Arabia laughable? yes

 

I have one question for you. You state that "there is very little genuine resistance to the occupational forces" Could you just cite your reference for the "fact"

Is the US laughable - to whom? Bush and Rice laughable - again, to whom? Democracy in Saudi Arabia laughable? - to whom? Not to the dissidents inside and outside that country who have been fighting for democracy for a long long time. I don't think Saddam and the national-socialist remnants and jihadists in Iraq find the US laughable; nor do the 8 million Iraqis who voted in the federal elections. Bush, Rice? I don't see the ultra-Rightist Zionist settlers laughing, as they are being forced to dismantle their settlements in Palestinian territory. The Palestinians may not be laughing but they are smiling, as Bush and Rice support the cause of a Palestinian State.

 

A decade or so from now, the claim that democracy in Saudi Arabia is laughable will almost certainly itself be laughable.

 

Is this a case of laughter being a class question?!

 

Barry

Dear Barry Is an ex alcoholic fundamentalist christian who made money though insider trading and leads an invason of a middle East country calling it a crusade funny? Is an ex Oil exec who now has an oil tanker named after her funny? Are these people funny when they launch wars? People can be funny and terrifying at the same time. But this is just fluff the point I was making is that the Saudi Minister thought that the idea of Saudi democracy was worth a laugh. I cant see how the US can engineer Saudi democracy short of invading the country first. My question to Pat stands he states that the resistance has little genuine support I am keen to access the same source because I havent seen anyone describe the resistance as marginal for over a year now so its easy Pat just give a reference for your assertion and then I will have learnt something.

 

ps Im glad you know anti war people who now support a democratic Iraq I have faith that the US could leave today and that the Iraqi people could sort themselves out just like immediatly after the war I supported Sistanis call for immediate elections I dont recall anyone else at this site calling for elections but I do recall people saying that elections were premature or people were just silent

The Saudi Minister won't laugh when he ends up in prison like Saddam who, probably, also once laughed at the new US strategic thinking.

 

But, Owenss, I took it that you were agreeing with the Saudi; that is why you said: "Is the idea of democracy in Saudi Arabia laughable? yes".

 

If the 'resistance' had significant support, they would have fielded candidates in the elections. Instead, they threatened to murder any Iraqis who voted. A mass-based movement does not require suicide-bombers; only a highly frustrated miniscule reactionary 'movement' relies on them. They are unpopular because they kill ordinary people and sabotage much-needed infrastructure. The insurgency is the main factor keepnig the US in Iraq. The best hope is for the Iraqi forces to be developed to a point where the US is no longer required as a military presence in such large numbers.

 

On Iraq's elections, you're wrong on a point of fact. This website is interested in defining a Left position which means, while supporting the democratic goals of current US strategy, we are not uncritical in our outlook. I do not have time to locate the link, but I recall the active members of this site, Albert Langer in particular, posting against Paul Bremer's stupid attempt to try and avoid direct elections in Iraq. He wanted some kind of convoluted collegiate system. Sistanti, to his credit, which we acknowledged at the time, said, no, it must be direct elections or nothing.

 

When the goal of elections was first announced, a year or so earlier, some of my old friends in the anti-war movement engaged in their characteristic defeatism and cynicism. "They'll never happen, the Yanks won't allow it", was their cry. When it became clear the elections were going to happen, the same people said, "They'll be rigged; the Yankee candidates will win". Well, direct elections did take place and the 'Yankee' preferred candidate (Allawi) got done like a dinner. And Sistanti's list proved the most popular.

 

It's worth contrasting the cynicism and defeatism of the anti-war mob with the hopes and enthusiasm for democratic change expressed in Rice's Cairo speech.

 

Barry  

 

 

Hi Barry you write that the Iraqi resistance is "miniscule" Pat states that there is "little genuine resistance" say we accept that this is true and that the resistance is composed of 2 types of people. Those who are implacably opposed to change and those who are fighting an army of occupation. It seems reasonable that if the army of occupation left then one leg of the resistance would be cut off. Why cant the Iraqi people be left to clean up the now reduced "miniscule" resistance?

 

As to Saudi Arabia I believe that for democracy to take root it must have some sort of supportive social base. If you can identify this base it would be helpful.  

I said it was 'miniscule' - not 'reduced'. The problem seems to be the fanatical jihadists, from outside Iraq, who, rightly from their point of view, see Iraq as a testing-ground. A single suicide-bomber can kill twenty people. A thousand foreign jihadists can kill 20,000. What the jihadists cannot do is convince large numbers of people to support them. However, it would be foolish to withdraw Coalition forces prematurely - by which I mean before the new Iraqi armed forces are adequate for the task of defeating them.

 

The insurgency is over-rated by a largely defeatist Western media. I do not for one moment wish to underrate the tragic consequences of the terrorism in Iraq but do not forget that Iraq's population is slightly larger than Australia's. Baghdad alone has a population exceeding five million. Iraq has 82 towns and cities with populations more than 20,000. www.worldgazetter.com  is a very good site for stats on this. The great majority of Iraqi towns are not even affected by the so-called resistance. So, why not support the withdrawal of Coalition forces? Simple: because many more innocent Iraqis will be killed by the suicide-bombers if they are withdrawn now. It will be a grand day when the Coalition forces can begin to withdraw forces and the Iraqis defend themselves. But that time is not quite upon us. And the decision will be made by the new sovereign federal Iraq, through an elected government, not by anti-war protestors in other countries.

 

What unites the disparate groups who make up the insurgency is a shared opposition to elections and a democratic constitution gouranteeing federalism and minority rights.

 

My understanding of the dissidents in Saudi Arabia is that they are either radical Islamists, who see the Saudi regime as corrupt and not genuniely Muslim, and who want a hard-line theocracy, on one hand, and on the other hand, 'pro-Western' reformers who want constitutional monarchy, the rule of law, independent judiciary, free press, etc. The latter tend to be from the educated professional classes. They are the ones who do not laugh at US support for democracy in the region. Only the Saud rulers do that.

 

Barry

 

Dear Barry I agree you said that the Iraqi resistance is "miniscule." My question is what evidence brings you to this conclussion? Pat said that the resistance has little genuine support. My question to him is still, name your references to support this. Its quite simple Im sure you guys arnt just making things up, I dont think that any of us are experts on Iraq so we must be relying information supplied by experts, my question put again is name your sources that indicate that the Iraqi resistance is miniscule or having little genuine support.

Its not good enough to state that the overwhelming majority participated in the election as the overwhelming majority voted for candidates the had an end the occupation platform.

 

ps every time Barry responds to my posting there seems to be a misunderstanding again I will take responsibility for not making myself clear enough but lord I do try

 

 

I have given my reasons and do not wish to keep repeating them. I do not regard participation in the elections as part of any kind of resistance movement. The coalition forces were there precisely to safeguard the right of Iraqis to vote for a candidate of their choice. The 'resistance', as I said earlier, did all it could to stop people from voting.

 

Time to move on.

 

Barry  

OK nuff said

Juan Cole is Professor of History at The University of Michigan

 

He estimates that guerilla movements can succeed if they obtain 40% support from the local population.

 

Cole estimates that the Iraqi guerillas in the Sunni areas recieve 80% support from the local population.

 

Cole estimates that there are 40,000 active guerillas plus 80,000 close supporters.

The trend among Sunni leaders is to participate in the next Iraqi election, having more or less boycotted the January 30 election. This change of heart, most recently on the part of the General Conference of Sunnis in Iraq, hardly points to support for insurgents who are united in their opposition to elections.

 

Dr. Al-Dulami, a spokesman for the Sunni Conference, said that Sunni clerics will soon issue a religious decree urging Sunnis to register with the electoral commission and to take part in the elections.

 

Here's an article about the very hopeful signs of Sunni participation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400222.html 

 

Owenss, it would be good to post a link to the Cole study/article so that one can consider the basis for his estimates.

 

If it is true that there are 40,000 active guerillas and 80,000 supporters, that's still a very small component of Iraq's population of 26 million, and small also in comparison to the 8 million Iraqis who stood up to them and voted. But, sure, big enough to continue to kill people and destroy infrastructure. Which is why they have to be defeated.

 

Barry

 

 

 

Professor Coles ideas were sourced from his blog "Informed Comment"

 

I found his info at Zed Net Iraq watch in an article by Dave Wearing "Iraq's future:the present course and the alternatives"

 

I think that the Sunni's joining the political process would be great it seems that the greatest obsticle to this is the presence of an army of occupation.

 

Again if the US left what would the Sunni's have to fight for?

The url for juan cole's blog is http://www.juancole.com/

His analysis is that most of the opposition to democracy comes from Baathists not foreign jihadists

Although anti Bush himself (his blog carries anti Bush ads) back in january he upset the pseudo's by arguing that US ought to stay longer in Iraq because of the threat of a third Baathist coup
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/third-baath-coup-if-as-i-have-argued.html

And this is my problem with the idea of just having the US suddenly withdraw its military from Iraq. What is to stop the neo-Baath from just killing Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Ibrahim Jaafari, Iyad Allawi (who is rumored not to sleep in the same bed twice), etc., all the members of the provincial councils and the new parliament, and then making a military coup that brings the party and its Sunni patronage networks back to power?

I think this coup would look more like the failed 1963 effort than like 1968, and has the potential to roil the country and the region for decades. The tanks and helicopter gunships and chemical weapons that the Sunni Arab minority regime used to put down the other groups are gone, and it is not clear that car bombs, Kalashnikovs and sniping could substitute for them. They can probably take the Green Zone and the television stations if the US abruptly withdraws, but could they really put down the South effectively again?

For this reason, I fear I think the US is stuck in Iraq. Sistani clearly fears a Sunni Arab coup, as well, and this is one reason he has not acted forcefully to end the military occupation, which he deeply dislikes.

Steves' argument that democracy in Iraq would be accelerated by US withdrawal now is not supported by Juan Cole, the person that Steve is quoting as the authority to support his argument.

As my previous post showed: the Sunnis are joining the political process, so Steve (BTW: sorry for calling you Owen all the time) we can both be happy. (You said: "I think that the Sunni's joining the political process would be great").

 

The majority of Kurds are Sunnis, so let's stop suggesting the conflict is about Sunnis versus the rest.

 

The problem is political: the Ba'ath remnants and foreign jihadists versus everyone else.

 

Like all reactionaries, they're ultimately paper-tigers but, in the meantime, they're killing a lot of people (the latest 'enemy' being two dozen Iraqi children taking lollies from a soldier). I see no reason to believe this would stop were the Coalition to withdraw, as the insurgents are opposed to the democratic process. As I've said previously, they proved this by threatening to kill anyone who voted.

 

In the immortal words of Bugs:

Dat's all folks! (from me, at least, on this topic)

 

Barry