Response to So what do we think now?
Indeed it seems to vindicate the pro-war camp's argument, but it's not the whole story. As with any other conflict, the whole story won't become 'clear' until it becomes 'un-news worthy', some times, years later.
Of course they're celebrating, he is/was a brutal dictator whose crimes have been well circulated, any alternative would be welcome (at least it can't get much worse). No doubt that all we will hear from everyone is 'see they're free', but does this disprove the motives that the anti-war camp is claiming to be behind the invasion?
This operation was cautiously predicted to be a pushover. This prediction seems to have been accurate: Iraq is one of the weakest countries in the region, including its military, and as expected, in less than a month it has basically crumbled. But the caution was prudent too: they've encountered allot more resistance than they would like (a story that wasn't 'fit to print' was the thousands of Iraqi refugees returning to back into the country to fight). No doubt the history of the west's involvement in Iraq made them feel a little sceptical about this new campaign (imagine that!).
The distaste of Saddam made it all the more easy to justify invading and to win the battles. But for me there are still some questions remaining: why a full scale military invasion? Surely the success of the CIA coup's in for eg. Saudi Arabia would be a less costly & preferable operation? Or better yet just assist an Iraqi (Kurdish) uprising, would a non-US coup not have been good enough? Indeed Hoon & Rumsfeld have been saying it doesn't matter if Saddam is dead, the operation will continue. I can't help feeling that the wish of the people to remove him was no more than a fringe benefit, a benefit not found in Saudi Arabia where the US approved leaders aren't welcome along with their base.
An easy military operation in Iraq to remove Saddam would be realativly welcome by the population & thus a stable permanent base can be established & a pentagon approved leadership can be installed to ensure the natural resources can be sold to the right people at the right price.
If the Kurds had toppled Saddam it wouldn't secure any of this, infact it would be nearly impossible as a free Iraq would effectively mean a split country; Kurdistan state & Shi'ite regions etc. which are allot harder to negociate/control if they have autonomy.
Soon we will see the refurbished Iraq, under a puppet regime (similar to S.Arabia) that will look great on paper and tv. 'Free Iraqi's (?) using 'their natural resources to benefit themselves'. Oil prices will go down & the Iraqi oil will be sold in petro dollar$ not in petro Euros, healing the economy. The military will have their base to exert influence, and WMD's will be found in good time (the nick of time?). Of course all this will vindicate any future invasions/operations (Syria, Iran, Columbia, Palestinians...?). And will we ever get an accurate civilian death toll?
In summery, I don't believe that Saddam/liberation or WMD's was the motive. Very, very little in past US military operations are motivated by anything other than strategic economic/military benefits (especially with the ex-Ron. Reagen figures in the Bush admin. now). Thus the celebrations of getting rid of Saddam do little to undermine the anti-war argument that this is typical US foreign policy.
Created By: g j