Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Initially we were discussing the position of women and gays and how it's not good now. Now, I think that a large part of the reason for that is the increased prominence of religious conservatism which is actually a part of the dynamics of Iraqi culture. Sistani is conservative not because of the US. He is not powerful because of the US.
But I agree that there is an ugly paradox - the invasion has seen a rise in fundamentalism when it was supposed to see the end of an authoritarian regime. If I were to go back 5 years and ask myself the question "Is it worth letting Saddam remain in power because of the threat of the religious clerics" I might possibly have said "yes". I might also have given up on humanity all together. I have never, before now at least, gone along with the Kissinger-like view that a dictatorship might be better than the consequences allowing people to vote.
But I do think it is worth considering my view that however Saddam went the conservative clerics would have got more power. Maybe that is good enough reason to oppose the invasion, but since we might have had to support Iraqi secularists in any case the main issue now is how to do that.
-
well is the invasion reposonsible for the religious conservativeness in the Shiite community or not? Do you really think that had Sistani overthrown Saddam that there would not be an increase in the influence of conservative clerics? The main opposition to Saddam was based in the Shiite religious community.
-
The invasion isn't responsible for the conservative religious elements. They would have gained prominance whatever the manner of Saddam's demise. The Shi'ite religious leadership is powerful and conservative, had they overthrown Saddam on their own we would be seeing the same threat from conservative religion. To blame this on the US is absurd.
-
Russell, I agee that under the CPA a lot of money went missing but I don't see how that deals with my point that under the sanctions Saddam benefited and the people suffered. That was one of the problems with the pre-invasion situation.
-
The Euston link should be this
-
sonic, that's funny given the discussion over Aaronovitch getting rapped over the knuckles for suggesting doing something over Zimbabwe.
But if you’re interested, over at the Euston Manifesto site you can be part of an email campaign in support of union rights in Zimbabwe.
And Head Decent Tony Blair is threatening force over Darfur.
-
Danyl, OK an overstatement but my more general point was that through the sanctions system Saddam and his cronies grew rich while the population suffered. And Saddam (and Galloway etc) made great use of that suffering for propganda.
Generally I'm for sanctions but with Iraq they went on for 12 years and looked set to contunue for some time. The difficluty was finding some solution to Saddam that could mean ending the sanctions.
-
Aaronvitch's point is that South African leaders have been mealy mouthed in their dealings with Mugabe. Yeah, it may be easy to say from London but does that really mean we shouldn't be saying this?
In the article quotes Desmond Tutu -
“How can what is happening in Zimbabwe elicit hardly a word of concern, let alone condemnation from us leaders of Africa?”
I agree. And I find it very troubling that there is such hostility to merely wanting leaders to condemn Mugabe, not invade for god sake, just condemn.
-
Ok I'll take back creepy. But there critcisim of Aaronovitch over Mugabe I find disturbing. If forceful criticism of Mugabe is now to much liberal inrevention, too Decent Left, then, really, who benefits?
-
RE what alternatives there were.
I'll state at the start that I have no idea what would have been the best way of dealing with Saddam and that the war proved too costly in human life.
But I do not believe that the pre-war situation was sustainable and it caused its own problems. The sanctions, no-fly zones, US troops in Saudi Arabia - all necessary to contain Saddam - were used ruthlessly for propaganda purposes by bin Laden and Saddam. How long were we expecting the US and Britain to keep this up?
We now know the degree to which Saddam's rule created sectarian hatred. Leaving him in power would just have made that worse.
The oil for food money was going straight into Saddam's pockets, not to feeding the people as it was supposed.
Saddam continued to harass the Kurds in the north and at the first opportunity was going to recapture that area.
Saddam had two psychopathic sons hovering in the wings to take over.
As I say I have no good ideas, but it is reasonable to expect in considering the alternatives to the invasion to consider just what the costs of those alternatives might be. So let’s put those alternatives on the table for scrutiny.