Monday, June 21, 2004
Background – Prospects of the Interim Government
The coalition’s first attempt at “constructing” an Iraqi government was the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). This was a total failure! Within weeks of its conception, the IGC was rejected by ordinary people. The present interim government was born out of the IGC.
Having said that, there are many Iraqis who seem to be willing to give the present government a chance…but apparently not all of them are willing to do that; violence has been on the rise recently!
The only possible solution to this stalemate situation in Iraq is to deprive violent people of their base of popular support which allows them to operate freely at present. This can only be achieved if the average Iraqi sees the government (interim or otherwise) as legitimate. But no government “engineered” by the occupying power will be seen as legitimate!
So, unfortunately, I can only see the present cycle of violence continuing. The “invited” multi-national forces after June 30th will try to bring the situation under control through the use of force. This will naturally lead to further popular resentment.
There was a time when the US administration could have won over the “hearts and minds” of the people through the demonstration of good will and good intentions!
But after a year of mistakes, criminal incompetence, ill-intentions and bad behavior, the US army is seen by most Iraqis as an “enemy” and as an occupying force. The political blunders of the IGC and the stink of the prisoner abuse episode… all have left the USA administration with too little credibility for the people to accept any declaration of good intentions with good will.
The US administration has “missed” an opportunity of historic proportions to improve this part of the world and to improve the way many people regard America. Most people who were suspicious of American intentions in Iraq, have now been proven correct!
The sad result is that any new scheme or policy will only be viewed with a great deal of skepticism to say the least.
Having said that, there are many Iraqis who seem to be willing to give the present government a chance…but apparently not all of them are willing to do that; violence has been on the rise recently!
The only possible solution to this stalemate situation in Iraq is to deprive violent people of their base of popular support which allows them to operate freely at present. This can only be achieved if the average Iraqi sees the government (interim or otherwise) as legitimate. But no government “engineered” by the occupying power will be seen as legitimate!
So, unfortunately, I can only see the present cycle of violence continuing. The “invited” multi-national forces after June 30th will try to bring the situation under control through the use of force. This will naturally lead to further popular resentment.
There was a time when the US administration could have won over the “hearts and minds” of the people through the demonstration of good will and good intentions!
But after a year of mistakes, criminal incompetence, ill-intentions and bad behavior, the US army is seen by most Iraqis as an “enemy” and as an occupying force. The political blunders of the IGC and the stink of the prisoner abuse episode… all have left the USA administration with too little credibility for the people to accept any declaration of good intentions with good will.
The US administration has “missed” an opportunity of historic proportions to improve this part of the world and to improve the way many people regard America. Most people who were suspicious of American intentions in Iraq, have now been proven correct!
The sad result is that any new scheme or policy will only be viewed with a great deal of skepticism to say the least.
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 4:25 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
When was that " golden hour" in which we could have won hearts and minds? I was not there so I relied on news reports of the never ceasing attacks on the coalition. The coalition arrived in Baghdad, the statue came down, people were cheering. We in the US thought we had bought liberation to your people. Should we have left then, while the Hussein family was alive and well, just hiding? Should we have left while Iraqis were unable to protect the national treasures? Should we have not tried to rebuild your country and just left it to the Iraqi people to reopen schools, rebuild your infrastructure. Why did Iraqis turn on the coalition?
Why did they kill our troops that came to save them?
Distrust is the most likely answer. Iraqis, after the initial euphoria, could not trust us to help you rebuild and improve your country before we left. How would selection of a type of government or election of that government occured if you were left alone? Would al Sadr and his militia protect you and give you an open and free government. Would the Baathists support a free government. You speak of puppet government not being legitimate and therefore unable to function. Who among the Iraqis had the experience in governing without a little help from people who had experience. One American, PB, worked with Iraqis to help them. The Iraqis in the provisional government selected Iraqis to lead until elections. How would you suggest it to be done differently? I understand foreigners on your soil in any type of power is not the most desirable situation
and we would not like that in America. I do think it is possible to work together for the best possible solution. My question to the Iraqis is "are you, a proud people willing to accept help and guidance from a nation who has helped before as in Germany and Japan to help people of a nation to come together in peace and rebuild the country and all of its institutions"?
Why did they kill our troops that came to save them?
Distrust is the most likely answer. Iraqis, after the initial euphoria, could not trust us to help you rebuild and improve your country before we left. How would selection of a type of government or election of that government occured if you were left alone? Would al Sadr and his militia protect you and give you an open and free government. Would the Baathists support a free government. You speak of puppet government not being legitimate and therefore unable to function. Who among the Iraqis had the experience in governing without a little help from people who had experience. One American, PB, worked with Iraqis to help them. The Iraqis in the provisional government selected Iraqis to lead until elections. How would you suggest it to be done differently? I understand foreigners on your soil in any type of power is not the most desirable situation
and we would not like that in America. I do think it is possible to work together for the best possible solution. My question to the Iraqis is "are you, a proud people willing to accept help and guidance from a nation who has helped before as in Germany and Japan to help people of a nation to come together in peace and rebuild the country and all of its institutions"?
...I don't agreee with your conclusions. It now appears Saddam did have a post-war plan, to cause ongoing chaos. I suppose this is the fault of the U.S. eh? Remember,
- Iraqis didn't topple THEIR evil ruler
- Iraqis are responsible for the deaths of millions (Iran, Kuwait, own people)
- Iraqis looted their own country and turned it into chaos
While we're trying to bring security and democracy:
- we don't know the language
- we don't know the culture
- we didn't know about Saddams post-war plans
Sorry, but Iraqis share responsibility in the problems you have. I suppose it is just easier to do nothing, be a 'victim' and blame the U.S. - isn't that what Saddam always did?
- Iraqis didn't topple THEIR evil ruler
- Iraqis are responsible for the deaths of millions (Iran, Kuwait, own people)
- Iraqis looted their own country and turned it into chaos
While we're trying to bring security and democracy:
- we don't know the language
- we don't know the culture
- we didn't know about Saddams post-war plans
Sorry, but Iraqis share responsibility in the problems you have. I suppose it is just easier to do nothing, be a 'victim' and blame the U.S. - isn't that what Saddam always did?
# posted by 
: 30 July, 2004 18:53
: 30 July, 2004 18:53
Thanks for taking the trouble to publish your blogs. I agree with many of your critiques, and am no fan of the Bush administration in general. It's also quite understandable that Iraqis would be fed-up and angry at the continuing problems. However, the thoughts expressed in some of these responses are also true.
There never was a golden age of LOVE and TRUST between Iraqis and Americans. Our soldiers in the so-called Sunni Triangle were under constant attack from the start. It seems that Saddam's boys had other ideas for Iraq -- cutting power and water through attacks on infrastructure were one. A steadily growing pile of bodies -- both foreign and Iraqi -- through bombings, assassination and sheer thuggery, was another. This is your home-grown, 100% Iraqi Political Solution. If you resent the solutions being imposed, in an admittedly ham-handed and incompetent way, by Americans I must ask you: do you prefer the home-grown, 100% Iraqi Political Solution instead?
You make excellent points about political parties needing time to grow, of institutions of democracy needing time and breathing space. And I infer from your many thoughtful remarks that you would make the necessary logical connection between that need for time and breathing space and the need for security and the rule of law. Well, your home-grown 100% Iraqi political operatives with the bombs will have none of that! Their whole strategy is based around keeping you fearful and miserable. It seems they are succeeding brilliantly.
America has made many mistakes in Iraq. It's no surprise what happened in Agu Graib, just look at America! Here, we have 2 million prisoners locked away in hellholes where rape, torture and anamalistic brutality are everyday occurrences. Some of it perpetrated by the guards, (and here I'll reference the staged Glatiator Duels at Corcoran State in California, Google it up if you want to vomit). But, and I say BUT, it should be noted that the population at Abu Graib under the American idiots was 5,000, while under the Saddam idiots it was 50,000. You see, my argument boils down to a 'lesser of two evils' thing. I wish I could offer more hope. I wish I could expect more from American politicians, and I wish you could as well. But we do the best we can, don't we?
There never was a golden age of LOVE and TRUST between Iraqis and Americans. Our soldiers in the so-called Sunni Triangle were under constant attack from the start. It seems that Saddam's boys had other ideas for Iraq -- cutting power and water through attacks on infrastructure were one. A steadily growing pile of bodies -- both foreign and Iraqi -- through bombings, assassination and sheer thuggery, was another. This is your home-grown, 100% Iraqi Political Solution. If you resent the solutions being imposed, in an admittedly ham-handed and incompetent way, by Americans I must ask you: do you prefer the home-grown, 100% Iraqi Political Solution instead?
You make excellent points about political parties needing time to grow, of institutions of democracy needing time and breathing space. And I infer from your many thoughtful remarks that you would make the necessary logical connection between that need for time and breathing space and the need for security and the rule of law. Well, your home-grown 100% Iraqi political operatives with the bombs will have none of that! Their whole strategy is based around keeping you fearful and miserable. It seems they are succeeding brilliantly.
America has made many mistakes in Iraq. It's no surprise what happened in Agu Graib, just look at America! Here, we have 2 million prisoners locked away in hellholes where rape, torture and anamalistic brutality are everyday occurrences. Some of it perpetrated by the guards, (and here I'll reference the staged Glatiator Duels at Corcoran State in California, Google it up if you want to vomit). But, and I say BUT, it should be noted that the population at Abu Graib under the American idiots was 5,000, while under the Saddam idiots it was 50,000. You see, my argument boils down to a 'lesser of two evils' thing. I wish I could offer more hope. I wish I could expect more from American politicians, and I wish you could as well. But we do the best we can, don't we?
# posted by : 01 August, 2004 01:00
: 01 August, 2004 01:00
I find it interesting to note the Americans that have commented have said that, essentially : You are too stupid to understand democracy, you are ungrateful for being occupied and that you have brought this mess upon yourselves. Nothing to do with them! You owe them big time for their efforts.(As if you asked them to take over.)
The only Iranian, supposedly your mortal enemy, offers you free web hosting.
Makes you think, huh?
--Bruno--
The only Iranian, supposedly your mortal enemy, offers you free web hosting.
Makes you think, huh?
--Bruno--
# posted by : 13 August, 2004 16:23
: 13 August, 2004 16:23
"or by religious fanatics."
The united states is run by a religious fanatic: George W. Bush is nothing more than a HARDCORE CHRISTIAN MORON.
The united states is run by a religious fanatic: George W. Bush is nothing more than a HARDCORE CHRISTIAN MORON.
# posted by : 02 December, 2004 19:50
: 02 December, 2004 19:50
After reading all the comments I offer this one. Germany and Japan did not have a national religion as an issue, like Islam, to contend with in their endeavor to help rebuild those nations. The situation in Iraq presents a more specific and specialized challenge, which does not begin and end with brick and mortar, but begin and end with ideology - Islam. The allied powers left Germany and Japan physically and ideologically beaten nations as a starting point, to say nothing of their religious preference. The Iraqi people start with dignity and continue, no matter what, with that same dignity (you call it pride) whether they get help from the U.S., from some other source, or from no source at all save Allah. Is it that assisting a nation with a different religious view (Islam) and a different political preference other than democracy (Islam) too much challenge to give serious bothers? Is America to proud to admit that this Iraqi rebuilding project is much more than one nation (U.S.) can handle effectively? Alternatively, should the U.S. seek the assistance and the scholarly, religious advice of Muslim imams in this rebuilding project, in addition to brick and mortar engineers, so as to make sure the means of governing are not a residual of occupation, and one that the people are accustomed too? Or, does that sound too much like right?
# posted by : 07 July, 2005 11:29
: 07 July, 2005 11:29
Seems Iraq would need to become a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy in order to survive as a nation and for the minorities to have a voice. America is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The founding fathers of America didn't want a Democracy because they felt that a Democracy would lead to tyranny and despotism. They might have had a point. Seems that almost everyone has long since forgotten what America is supposed to be, including its leaders.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 09 September, 2005 08:24
: 09 September, 2005 08:24 << Home
