Who will rescue the US?

[mia]

It's scary to think of what will surely continue to happen to the occupation forces in Iraq. The people of Iraq deserve the chance to decide how to spend the money gleaned from selling their oil. In the end, they will. This article makes some good points.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621832400.html?from=top5
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/11/12n_cartoon,0.jpg

April 12, 2004

America is slowly learning that it is Iraqis who will decide their own future, says Martin Woollacott.

<snip>

The truth in Iraq has, from the start, been that the American "occupation", like most occupations, has never meant any kind of close military control of Iraqi society. Even if close control was desirable, American and other coalition troops are not present in sufficient numbers - nor do they have the language and other skills that would enable them to exercise it.

Iraq is not yet the defeat for the US that it could become. But America is chastened and perplexed.
While those who predicted an unalloyed welcome for the Americans proved to be wrong, they were right to the extent that the US occupation relies on the consent of important forces in Iraqi society and on the promise of beneficial political and economic changes. It is this consent and the belief in that promise that is wavering as fighting spreads - and along with it the idea that the Americans are losing their way and have no clear idea how to reassert themselves.

<snip>

Iraq is not yet the defeat for the US that it could become. But America is chastened and perplexed. The Bush Administration, which believed so devoutly that it could move mountains, may now know better. It may even grasp that the concept to which it has always paid lip-service - that it is Iraqis who will decide their own future - is now more than just useful rhetoric. It is Iraqis, in the accumulation of their choices, decisions and actions, who will largely decide whether America's intervention ends up as a success or as a failure.

The Americans went to Iraq to rescue the Iraqis, and now stand in need of being rescued themselves.

Martin Woollacott writes on international affairs for The Guardian, London, where this article first appeared.

[sam sarrha]

1. God is on our side.. God will save us......... we are doing this for him

after all...

[SharonAnn]

4. We should be on God's side. And I fear we are not.

We shouldn't be there, trying to decide how the country should be structured. We shouldn't be there.

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. I'm afraid that the consensus around the world regarding the United States

.
.
.

would agree that the majority of feelings are somewhere between fear and hate.

Sympathy? - nope.

The United States STARTED this action in the face of criticism and disagreement from the International Community.

They have ridiculed/chastised/ignored/punished and threatened previous allies.

The World has repeatedly asked George Bush to stop the killing, including the Pope.

But George knows better, and the killings continue.



Short of the rest of the world ganging up on the United States and entering a nuclear holocaust, there is only one way to stop the United States.

The voters and taxpayers of the United States must get to work.

They must turn off their "reality" shows, put away the toys, and go to work together to save their own country, because if they don't,

G W Bush and his ilk will destroy it

Killing millions in the process

(sigh)

[starroute]

3. We have nothing to offer the Iraqis

In order to suppress a rebellion, you need to offer something positive in return for submission. For example, the Philippine Insurrection a century ago could not have been put down if many Philippinos had not believed that there were useful things to be gained in the way of modernization by becoming an American colony.

As far as I can tell, we have nothing at all to offer the Iraqis. The one thing we claimed to bring them -- democracy -- has been revealed as a scam. Anything else they might want -- prosperity, education, a position of leadership in the Arab world -- is not going to come about through American rule. So what reason at all do they have to accept that rule?

The author of this article seems to think the US occupation could still be maintained by "the consent of important forces in Iraqi society and on the promise of beneficial political and economic changes."

I think there's not a chance in hell.