Screw the Happy Talk (The Hidden Friedman)
Tom Friedman lets the pessimism for Iraq all hang out in his Friday column, Iraq at the 11th Hour (fully available to Times Select subscribers):
The fate of the entire U.S. enterprise in Iraq now hangs in the balance, as the war has entered a dangerous new phase. It is the phase of barbaric identity-card violence between Sunnis and Shiites. In the late 1970's, I covered a similar moment in Lebanon, and the one thing I learned was this: Once this kind of venom gets unleashed — with members of each community literally beheading each other on the basis of their religious identities — it poisons everything. You enter a realm that is beyond politics, a realm where fear and revenge dominate everyone's thinking — and that is where Iraq is heading.Tom's solution is to load the streets with massive numbers of troops and police and for the formation of a unity government. The latter would be a good step, the former needed beyond belief. And still, I'm pessimistic and don't see any light leading us out of the hole.
[...]
Once embedded, this cycle of fear and revenge is almost impossible to break. People conclude that the only thing that can protect them is a militia from their own sect, not the police or the army. Then these militias, which come to life to protect the neighborhood, take on a life of their own. They develop protection rackets, feel the thrill of power and, as that happens, start to do all they can to prevent the government from restoring its authority. Finally, as the BBC noted in a recent report from Baghdad, some Iraqi politicians are now concluding that "they can gain more power and influence from building on sectarian loyalties than from appeals for national unity." When politicians decide they can get ahead by appealing more to fear than to hope, national reconciliation goes up in smoke.
[...]Donald Rumsfeld's criminally negligent decision not to deploy enough troops in Iraq to begin with created this security vacuum. But the insecurity was compounded by the unique enemy that emerged to take advantage of that vacuum — Sunni Islamo-nihilists. These are a disparate collection of groups with one common agenda: America and its Iraqi allies must fail; they must not be allowed to build Iraq into a Western-style, democratizing society. When you are up against an enemy whose only goal is that you must fail, and which does not care about how much death and destruction it inflicts on its own people, let alone on others, it is extremely difficult to establish order.
The Iraqi Shiite community showed remarkable restraint in the face of the murderous provocations by these Islamo-nihilist gangs during the past three years. But that restraint is over. It's now clear that some Shiite militias are ready to match the Sunni nihilists, killing for killing. So the slide into a medieval barbarism has begun.
Do not believe any of the Bush team's happy talk. It doesn't matter if Iraq is quiet in the south and quiet in the north. If Baghdad, the heart of the country, is being ripped apart, then there is no Iraq — because there is no center.
1 Comments:
You made one comment in this posting that I've been thinking about myself for a while:
"...Rumsfeld's criminally negligent decision not to deploy enough troops in Iraq to begin with..."
I can think of many cases where a nation descended into anarchy due to internal political crises (Lebanon, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, many others). I can think of several cases where war with an external threat caused the collapse of a regime (Czarist Russia). I can think of several cases where a failing regime was propped up by external forces (Afghanistan, El Salvador, myriad nations in Africa).
What I can't recall happening at any time in recent history, is a situation where a comparatively stable country was invaded by an external power, and then allowed to descend into anarchy.
This was not the experience in either of the World Wars. But this is precisely what has occured in Iraq.
It's been a while since I've read up on my International Law, but I believe the Geneva Conventions require an invading power to provide a modicum of stability after occupying another nation-state.
Now I realize the U.S. has done an admirable job of ignoring most of the Geneva conventions in this current conflict, but I think it's about time the question should be discussed publicly: "Is the U.S. administration criminally responsible for the current state of affairs in Iraq?"
Post a Comment
<< Home