US openly considering dictatorship in Iraq

[Red October]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.
art.iraq.violence.afp.gi.jpg

Continuing violence -- like this Baghdad blast from May -- is causing a rethink of U.S. goals, generals say.

A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war.

But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.

"Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future," said Brig. Gen. John "Mick" Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, one of the war's major battlegrounds.

The comments reflect a practicality common among Western diplomats and officials trying to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and other non-Western countries where democracy isn't a tradition.

The failure of Iraq to emerge from widespread instability is a bitter pill for the United States, which optimistically toppled the Saddam Hussein regime more than four years ago. Millions of Iraqis went to the polls to cast ballots, something that generated great promise for the establishment of a democratic system.

But Iraqi institutions, from the infrastructure to the national government, are widely regarded as ineffective in the fifth year of the war.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, declined to be interviewed for this story, but they issued a joint statement to CNN that reiterated that the country's "fundamental democratic framework is in place" and that "the development of democratic institutions is being encouraged."

And, they said, they are helping Iraqi political leaders find ways "to share power and achieve legislative progress."

But Crocker and Petraeus conceded they are "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset."

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning, also reflected a less lofty American goal for Iraq's future.

"I would describe it as leaving an effective government behind that can provide services to its people, and security. It needs to be an effective and functioning government that is really a partner with the United States and the rest of the world in this fight against the terrorists," said Mixon, who will not be perturbed if such goals are reached without democracy.

"Well, see that all over the Middle East," he said, stating that democracy is merely an option, that Iraqis are free to choose or reject.

"But that is the $50,000 question. ... What will this government look like? Will it be a democracy? Will it not?" he asked.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/...racy/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html)

we've known they wanted this all along, but it's odd that they are openly saying they are prepared to establish a dictatorship in Iraq. Thoughts on this? It may mark a shift away from the disguises of "spreading freedom and democracy" into more open and obvious imperialism in the middle east.

[piet11111]

It needs to be an effective and functioning government that is really a partner with the United States

so basicly they are saying they want someone like saddam (pre-kuweit)to be in charge :rolleyes:

also what a lame excuse to say the iraqi's are unwilling to have a democracy.

[Tower of Bebel]

The fact that they would seek for democracy has already been dismatled many times. It's indeed the first time they openly admit. And of course, for the bourgeoisie dictatorship is necessairy. "Democracy" is impossible in Iraq. Even before the war it seemed unlikely that democracy would succeed. Is must be military or fascists.
The US will get away with this because Iraq is broken. Many people will also think that maybe a dictatorship will be the best option, as the people don't have clue what to do about it. The US can really get away with it.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:00 pm
The fact that they would seek for democracy has already been dismatled many times. It's indeed the first time they openly admit. And of course, for the bourgeoisie dictatorship is necessairy. "Democracy" is impossible in Iraq. Even before the war it seemed unlikely that democracy would succeed. Is must be military or fascists.
The US will get away with this because Iraq is broken. Many people will also think that maybe a dictatorship will be the best option, as the people don't have clue what to do about it. The US can really get away with it.
I'm sure they will get away with it, just like they got away with backing up dictators in South Vietnam. They realize that if they can't get a pro-American puppet government through democracy, they will get one through dictatorship and Iraq will be right where it was before 1991.

[spartan]

god the worlds biggest "democracy" is considering establishing and supporting a dictatorship in iraq. one could say why didnt you just keep sadaam in power and not invade and waste thousands of american and coalition livesin the first place? but of course that isnt the capitalist way. of course this is a practical admission from the us that they didnt invade iraq to get rid of saddam and stop terrorism via the spreading of democracy. no this shows clearly that they went in there to serve their own greedy intrests the yankee doodle bastards!

[Tatarin]

Or, they can "democratically" declare martial law for undefined time and put puppet x in power. When US troops aren't there anymore, the world will return to "peace" once again...

[Entrails Konfetti]

I guess the assassination attempts on Saddam were unfruitful so they decided to invade.

[capstop]

US imperialism can and will do everything in its power survive its economic crisis and in the possess it will continue to stimulate the growth of the revolutionary anti-imperialist resistance and whether we like it or not makes no difference.

[Red Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:32 pm
Or, they can "democratically" declare martial law for undefined time and put puppet x in power. When US troops aren't there anymore, the world will return to "peace" once again...
all they want with iraq is oil and you and any smart person has known this from the start it is as if they just want to make iraq another state until there is no oil becaue you know the person they appoint as dictator is going to be a god awful leader

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by anti-socialist+August 22, 2007 11:12 pm--> (anti-socialist @ August 22, 2007 11:12 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 03:32 pm
Or, they can "democratically" declare martial law for undefined time and put puppet x in power. When US troops aren't there anymore, the world will return to "peace" once again...
all they want with iraq is oil and you and any smart person has known this from the start it is as if they just want to make iraq another state until there is no oil becaue you know the person they appoint as dictator is going to be a god awful leader[/b]
No, they do not want oil. They want to control its flow away from importing it to the US so that the American conglomerates don't have to worry about their prices going down, as there's no way Iraq will privatize it's oil reserve. That is not to say, however, that they don't want to install a puppet regime or petty dictator so oversee that the country(or what remains of it) becomes open to US foreign corporations for cheap labor as the country's economy is not viable without it, or so we say.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:57 am
US imperialism can and will do everything in its power survive its economic crisis and in the possess it will continue to stimulate the growth of the revolutionary anti-imperialist resistance and whether we like it or not makes no difference.
The problem is the US imperialism is not what it use to be, and the Iraq war is showing US is a declining imperial power. The US being open about a directorship in Iraq shows they are getting desperate, they rather have a naked puppet dictator then losing Iraq and showing the world the US empire is a has been.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I wouldn't be suprised.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Supplemental Act; it placed certain demands that Iraq had to fufill within the incoming months, which included the privatization of their oil supply. The Basra Oil Workers' strike stopped the 'Oil Law' from being put into place, and the comprador regime is currently incapable of coercing anything out of the defiant workers.

A fascist dictatorship, however, could end the instability.

[Severian]

Interesting subject, Red October.

This isn't entirely new; ruling-class pundits have made proposals like this before.

It is new that serving generals in Iraq are talking like this...I think there's two things going on here.

1. As Red Dali mentions, the elected government of Iraq isn't doing what it's "supposed" to. Both Bush and Congress are frequently expressing dissatisfaction with its actions and inaction. Iranian influence, sectarian division, not passing the (pro-imperialist investment) oil law....

2. The U.S. officer caste is becoming more and more openly politicized and factionalized. I mean, these are policy questions which under bourgeois democracy are supposed to be decided by elected officials, not generals.

And traditionally, serving officers in the U.S. military don't take sides in partisan debates or express dissenting opinions on contentious war-related policy questions.

This has implications for the long-term stability of bourgeois democracy in the U.S., not just for the Iraq situation.

But probably Washington won't actually remove the elected Baghdad government, or wink at its removal. Most Iraqi Shi'a would be pissed; and probably even the Kurdish nationalist parties wouldn't be pleased. So more likely than not it would actually increase the instability.

These kind of statements may be aimed in part at threatening the Maliki government into changing its behavior....

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:23 am
I wouldn't be suprised.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Supplemental Act; it placed certain demands that Iraq had to fufill within the incoming months, which included the privatization of their oil supply. The Basra Oil Workers' strike stopped the 'Oil Law' from being put into place, and the comprador regime is currently incapable of coercing anything out of the defiant workers.

A fascist dictatorship, however, could end the instability.
A fascist regime would require intimidation, the US military is nearing the breaking point in Iraq and instead of striking fear into Iraqi, the weakness of the US military encourages uprisings like how weak other weak imperial power sparked uprisings against said imperial power.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:06 am
god the worlds biggest "democracy" is considering establishing and supporting a dictatorship in iraq. one could say why didnt you just keep sadaam in power and not invade and waste thousands of american and coalition livesin the first place? but of course that isnt the capitalist way. of course this is a practical admission from the us that they didnt invade iraq to get rid of saddam and stop terrorism via the spreading of democracy. no this shows clearly that they went in there to serve their own greedy intrests the yankee doodle bastards!
I don't think anyone didn't believe that from the start.
The U.S isn't going to invade somewhere without being guaranteed of two things; resources and trade.
And to call the U.S a democracy is almost as absurd as saying that America went into Iraq to set up a democratic system! :lol:

RedDali's post is pretty much on the ball, IMO.


A fascist regime would require intimidation, the US military is nearing the breaking point in Iraq and instead of striking fear into Iraqi, the weakness of the US military encourages uprisings like how weak other weak imperial power sparked uprisings against said imperial power.

That said, do you disagree that America has the military might to set up a fascist dictatorship in Iraq?
I don't deny America is a declining Imperialist power, but I think you're assuming it's declining at a rate much faster than it is - That being, it lacks the ability to set up fascist/totalitarian, etc, regimes.

[ComradeR]

No, they do not want oil. They want to control its flow away from importing it to the US so that the American conglomerates don't have to worry about their prices going down
There is actually another much larger reason, that is to gain control the oil flow of the mid-east to put a check on China and other emerging imperial rivals in order to preserve US global dominance.

A fascist regime would require intimidation, the US military is nearing the breaking point in Iraq and instead of striking fear into Iraqi, the weakness of the US military encourages uprisings like how weak other weak imperial power sparked uprisings against said imperial power.
True, but never underestimate an imperial power that is desperate to maintain control, they will without hesitation resort to large scale massacres if it can maintain said control, which is something the US military is still more then capable of carrying out.

god the worlds biggest "democracy" is considering establishing and supporting a dictatorship in iraq.
Why break a trend? :rolleyes:

[Tower of Bebel]

The question indeed is: do they have the power to install a self-sufficient dictatorship? Right now it is the American army that breaks the will of the people. Yet I do not believe the US will keep its soldiers over there. Second, which power is strong enough to supress al ethnic and sectarian violence in the region? Even the Americans are unable to keep the situation stable.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:57 am
The question indeed is: do they have the power to install a self-sufficient dictatorship? Right now it is the American army that breaks the will of the people. Yet I do not believe the US will keep its soldiers over there. Second, which power is strong enough to supress al ethnic and sectarian violence in the region? Even the Americans are unable to keep the situation stable.
To me, its clear that if the US wants a dictatorship in Iraq, all it needs to do is close up the democratic facade in the parliament, and stop pretending to be introducing democracy.

For all practical purposes, there is already a dictatorship in Iraq.

[Goatse]

Sorry for being naive, but if all they wanted was a pro-US government surely a coup would have done the job?

[spartan]

exactly or they could have just bought saddam off for his resources instead of wasting thousands of lives in an invasion. this just proves that capitalists do not value human life except of course when were heating their fucking palaces.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 23, 2007 07:22 am

A fascist regime would require intimidation, the US military is nearing the breaking point in Iraq and instead of striking fear into Iraqi, the weakness of the US military encourages uprisings like how weak other weak imperial power sparked uprisings against said imperial power.

That said, do you disagree that America has the military might to set up a fascist dictatorship in Iraq?
I don't deny America is a declining Imperialist power, but I think you're assuming it's declining at a rate much faster than it is - That being, it lacks the ability to set up fascist/totalitarian, etc, regimes.
The US military is already spread as thinly as the British military was after World War I, actually more thinly as Britain was still able to call up a decent amount of troops from its colonies, while the US can't pull any troops from its puppet governments because these nations are more unstable then British colonies after World War I. The USA can't even redeploy US troops in Latin America as the puppet governments would not be able to stand on their their own, for example look at Colombia even with the US throwing tons of US troops to prop up their puppet government in Colombia for decades, the US is only able to prevent rebel forces from overthrowing the puppet government but never was able to elimiate the threat of armed revolution in Columbia.

[rouchambeau]

Sorry for being naive, but if all they wanted was a pro-US government surely a coup would have done the job?
You mean a coup against a government that is already backed by the U.S.? That would look very good for the States.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)This isn't entirely new; ruling-class pundits have made proposals like this before.

It is new that serving generals in Iraq are talking like this...I think there's two things going on here.

1. As Red Dali mentions, the elected government of Iraq isn't doing what it's "supposed" to. Both Bush and Congress are frequently expressing dissatisfaction with its actions and inaction. Iranian influence, sectarian division, not passing the (pro-imperialist investment) oil law....[/b]

Are you saying that maybe the USA will install another dictator from an officer class of the Iraqi Army? Kinda like how the British installed Amin in Ughanda?


But probably Washington won't actually remove the elected Baghdad government, or wink at its removal. Most Iraqi Shi'a would be pissed; and probably even the Kurdish nationalist parties wouldn't be pleased. So more likely than not it would actually increase the instability.

I'm guessing here, so unlike Amin, this official who will rule by decree, will not be installed by a coup? What about a rigged election?


Psy
The USA can't even redeploy US troops in Latin America as the puppet governments would not be able to stand on their their own, for example look at Colombia even with the US throwing tons of US troops to prop up their puppet government in Colombia for decades, the US is only able to prevent rebel forces from overthrowing the puppet government but never was able to elimiate the threat of armed revolution in Columbia.

Some experts don't deny that there will be rebellions in Iraq after the USA has left,
and it's probably cheaper to fund and train repressive regimes than it is to deploy troops. So it could be possible that they aren't looking for peace in Iraq, just a friendly regime that will keep order.

[Guerrilla22]

I always found it amusing that so many people inside the US govt. and media tnd to blame the Iraqi govt. for not being able to function and to contain the insurgency. It seems they want to blame everyone else (Iran, al-Qaeda) instead of admitting that their policies have failed miserably time and time again.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:11 am
exactly or they could have just bought saddam off for his resources instead of wasting thousands of lives in an invasion. this just proves that capitalists do not value human life except of course when were heating their fucking palaces.
After the US switched around on Saddam in the Gulf War and officially denounced him for what he was (a tyrant), there's no way the American Government could ally themselves again. The American people are not very class conscious, but I doubt they wouldn't notice a huge shift like that. Especially since Bush's father was the one who denounced Saddam.

[Cheung Mo]

Never will this ever be more appropriate:

http://www.mecawi.org/mission%20accomplished.jpg

[Dublin Red]

I really cannot believe how the U.S government can get away with this sort of thing. If they put a dictator in charge now in 10 or 15 years we will have another Saddam and another war. They should have just left him in charge biggest mistake of the 21st century so far was taking him out of power. For all of his faults he seemed to be the only one who could control Iraq. He was feared in Iraq and the Americans aren't and I think thats what it basically comes down to in the end.

Democracy will never work in the near future in Iraq its a different culture over there in the middle east. Surely the Americans didn't think they could change over twenty years of Saddam in a mere two or three years. It would take a lot of time for democracy to evolve in Iraq and the Americans don't have much time on their hands. Its nice in a way to see Bush's imperialist war backfire in his face. But not nice to see so many innocent people killed in a meaningless war. :angry:

[Tatarin]

If they put a dictator in charge now in 10 or 15 years we will have another Saddam and another war.

That depends. They've learned the lesson from Saddam. Now they will probably be more involved in the development of Iraq.


They should have just left him in charge biggest mistake of the 21st century so far was taking him out of power.

I wouldn't call it a "mistake". After, soon, 5 years, they can still send troops to Iraq, they still have much power there. Taking out Saddam also propagated a message to the world: If you oppose Big Business, we will deal with you.


For all of his faults he seemed to be the only one who could control Iraq.

Control by oppression. Until the US invaded, there were only conflicts within the Iraqi ruling class. No one had the same amount of weapons or troops as Saddam had, so naturally, no one had much chance against him.


He was feared in Iraq and the Americans aren't and I think thats what it basically comes down to in the end.

Of course Americans are feared. Wouldn't you be scared of goons with guns, who can do whatever they please with you without anyone knowing about it?

But with the war came many different groups who all wanted either a piece of the country, or the country as a whole. It is the chaos people fear. If I support the US/Iraqi Puppet Regime today, I'll get shot by Group X. If I support Group X, I'll get shot by the occupational forces.


Democracy will never work in the near future in Iraq its a different culture over there in the middle east.

If people change, then so does culture, and people do change. And by what standards do you judge culture? Where does it start?


It would take a lot of time for democracy to evolve in Iraq and the Americans don't have much time on their hands.

George Bush doesn't have a lot of time. There has been talk of a "withdrawal plan" for years, but nothing has been done. As long as there is poor people in the US, and as long as you can get a "new life in the military", they will be in Iraq. Hillary will probably win, and after that a republican will be a president again, with new promises, and then a democrat again, and so on.

It can keep going on for decades. Remember, we have all those evil terrorists to take care of too. And if "we" leave Iraq, every terrorist in the world will go there of course, along with all dictators and all evil.

[Psy]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 23, 2007 08:10 pm
Some experts don't deny that there will be rebellions in Iraq after the USA has left, and it's probably cheaper to fund and train repressive regimes than it is to deploy troops. So it could be possible that they aren't looking for peace in Iraq, just a friendly regime that will keep order.
The fractions in Iraq that are friendly to the USA are too weak and would be overthrown the day after the US pulled its troops out of Iraq. Just look at Afganistan where war lords that hardly are friendly to the USA control most of Afganistan where the US puppet only controls the capital with the help of US and British troops.

[RNK]

More than likely, if the US and its allies pulled out of Iraq, there would be a short, bloody power-grab civil war, which the Shiite groups with Iran's backing will most likely win. From there, Iraq will either undergo some revolutionary change, or it will essentially become another generic Arab nation; ruled by rich nobility.

[ComradeR]

I really cannot believe how the U.S government can get away with this sort of thing. If they put a dictator in charge now in 10 or 15 years we will have another Saddam and another war. They should have just left him in charge biggest mistake of the 21st century so far was taking him out of power. For all of his faults he seemed to be the only one who could control Iraq. He was feared in Iraq and the Americans aren't and I think thats what it basically comes down to in the end.
The reason for not leaving him in power was because the sanctions against Iraq were about to be lifted, which would have opened up Iraq's oil to the US's imperial rivals. Like I have said before the US invaded Iraq as part of it's imperial campaign to gain control of the mid-east's increasingly vital oil, in order to preserve US global dominance by keeping emerging imperial rivals in check.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There is an immediate interest in Iraq - by simply replacing Saddam through a coup de etat, we still wouldn't reap the benefits that we have today.

Iraq, along with other parts of the region, have two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves; there is even untapped wells across the country, and with the wrecked state of the oil industry, it would be most suitable to reconstruct it along the lines of western interests in order to refine and export this product more swiftly to their own markets. In Dreaming of democracy, David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, had stated that they would be on "the road to Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh and Jerusalem goes through Baghdad," which is certainly a statement of the strategic importance of the presence of American troops. Since the invasion, we protected the petro-dollar, and there is even debate on removing the entire country out of the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries, which would allow cheaper exports altogether. The imperialists would not of been able to do this if they didn't act on the basis of a military invasion and occupation.

I am playing devil's advocate here - but what are the chances of an international taskforce taking charge in Iraq? Wouldn't it also be good to 'divide and conquer'; carving up the country into national sections?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:06 pm
Sorry for being naive, but if all they wanted was a pro-US government surely a coup would have done the job?
They didn't want a friendly governmet again like the one of Saddam before he became their enemy. They wanted full control. It didn't work it with the army and it didn't work out with the provisional goverment. Now they have to go back to the concept of a dictatorship just like Saddam.

[Eleftherios]

If the US ever establishes a dictatorship in Iraq, it would certainly be a sign of desperation. It would not bring about stability. On the contrary, a dictatorship in Iraq would make many Iraqis who would otherwise support the regime turn against it. It would also induce the Americans who actually believed Bush when he said he would bring democracy to Iraq think twice about their support for the war.

[Dublin Red]

I wouldn't call it a "mistake". After, soon, 5 years, they can still send troops to Iraq, they still have much power there.

Yeah but its just going to cause more innocent deaths and more hatred towards the U.S. They like to think that they have great power but honestly the groups opposed to them are just going to keep getting stronger.


Of course Americans are feared. Wouldn't you be scared of goons with guns, who can do whatever they please with you without anyone knowing about it?

Yeah fair enough they are feared to a certain extent but do you really think they are as feared as Saddam?? If people rose up aginst Saddam they would know that they would be wiped out. The U.S military are trying to do the same thing and examples of this are the incidents in Haditha, Mukardeeb and the massacre in Fallujah, but still the Iraqi's continue fighting.


If people change, then so does culture, and people do change. And by what standards do you judge culture? Where does it start?


Yeah but it takes more than a few years to change people. I was taking about the fact that Iraq for the best part of it's history has either been controlled by foreign invaders or corrupt leaders. It would be stupid to think that a successful democratic government can be installed there in the next few years.

[Asstrumpet]

Originally posted by Dublin Red+--> (Dublin Red)They like to think that they have great power but honestly the groups opposed to them are just going to keep getting stronger.[/b]

The US army will always be more powerful than the radical groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army, no, the US Military is fucking huge. Personally, I think if the US wanted to set up dictatorship in Iraq, they sucessfully could. No matter the objections by the Iraqis and the Radicals. There will be attempts to overthrow it, but it won't work. The US is extremely powerful.

That's why they're such a pimple on the face of the Earth. Imperialist jackasses who are looking to take over the world.


Originally posted by Dublin [email protected]
The U.S military are trying to do the same thing and examples of this are the incidents in Haditha, Mukardeeb and the massacre in Fallujah, but still the Iraqi's continue fighting.

Certainly, but their attempts will be futile.


Dublin Red
I was taking about the fact that Iraq for the best part of it's history has either been controlled by foreign invaders or corrupt leaders. It would be stupid to think that a successful democratic government can be installed there in the next few years.

In the next few years, of course not. But I believe if the US doesn't attempt to take power and decides to democracize (most likely not a word, but flow with it) Iraq, it could work over a long period of time.

I remain slightly optimistic to gradual improvements.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:48 pm
The US army will always be more powerful than the radical groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army, no, the US Military is fucking huge. Personally, I think if the US wanted to set up dictatorship in Iraq, they sucessfully could. No matter the objections by the Iraqis and the Radicals. There will be attempts to overthrow it, but it won't work. The US is extremely powerful.

The US military is also spread thinly across the world, Iraq shows that the US military can't focus it forces very well, as the US military is having huge shortages of men and equipment in Iraq.

The US is now like the British Empire after WWI, nothing but a shadow of a imperial power.

[Tatarin]

They like to think that they have great power but honestly the groups opposed to them are just going to keep getting stronger.

Unless, as the title says, they create a dictatorship...


Yeah fair enough they are feared to a certain extent but do you really think they are as feared as Saddam??

Why not? What did Iraqi troops do, under the rule of Saddam, that US troops haven't done? Or that US troops wouldn't do?


The U.S military are trying to do the same thing and examples of this are the incidents in Haditha, Mukardeeb and the massacre in Fallujah, but still the Iraqi's continue fighting.

Yes, but back then it were this and that group against Saddams regime. Today, not all groups are directly against US, i.e. there are fights between Shia and Sunni Muslims, between Kurds and the Ba'athist remnants, and so on.

Also, US troops have another language, they don't know much about Iraq (hell, how many knew (or knows) where it is?), the invasion is not "conscious" with the troops - it's oil, then liberation, then Saddam etc. The occupation is truly "foreign".

If they all would unite to throw the occupational forces out, then it would be another thing.


Yeah but it takes more than a few years to change people. I was taking about the fact that Iraq for the best part of it's history has either been controlled by foreign invaders or corrupt leaders. It would be stupid to think that a successful democratic government can be installed there in the next few years.

Yes, with this I agree.


The US is extremely powerful.

On the other hand, it is as strong as the US economy allows it to be. Should the case present itself, it could fall down like a house of cards.

[Asstrumpet]

Originally posted by Tatarin
On the other hand, it is as strong as the US economy allows it to be. Should the case present itself, it could fall down like a house of cards.

Perhaps it is just me, but I see the US Economy growing and growing and becoming more corrupt as we watch.

If the case present itself, that shall be the "revolutionary situation" Socialists speak of and it could possibly lead to Socialist Revolution.

I suppose we must hope for the best.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Alceos
The reason for not leaving him in power was because the sanctions against Iraq were about to be lifted, which would have opened up Iraq's oil to the US's imperial rivals. Like I have said before the US invaded Iraq as part of it's imperial campaign to gain control of the mid-east's increasingly vital oil, in order to preserve US global dominance by keeping emerging imperial rivals in check.
Fine, except how were the sanctions about to be lifted? The U.S. still has a security council veto. Sanctions and inspections could have been continued indefinitely - in fact that was the argument of bourgeois opponents of the invasion. Never mind the sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands.

I think the timing of invasion has more to do with the failure of all other means of removing Hussein's regime and establishing a U.S. client regime in its place....