‘Strong like Saddam’?
If all we are doing is replacing Saddam with regional strongmen why did we get rid of him?
NW- The U.S. military discovered too late that Iraq’s tangled network of tribal leaders is a major key to security. Yet over the past year, “government from the bottom up” has become one of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s favorite catchphrases. As violence has declined in Sunni enclaves like Ramadi and Fallujah in recent months, commanders have tried to replicate the apparent success of the region’s Anbar Salvation Council elsewhere. Last summer American military commanders spent millions of dollars on “concerned local citizens” programs—essentially paying off tribal sheiks to keep their followers from planting roadside bombs. In Tikrit’s Salah Ad Din province, the Army has spent more than $5 million to buy the loyalty of 26 different sheiks. (Kanan is not among them, although another sheik from the same family is.) With Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s central government weaker than ever—unable to provide basic services even to Baghdad—power brokers in the provinces are enjoying something of a renaissance. That’s fine with Kanan al-Sadid. “We have to get rid of central control,” he says, exhaling a cloud of French-cigarette smoke.
Yet “government from the bottom up” is not without risks. Critics say empowering regional strongmen is creating a warlord state in Iraq, with tribal and religious leaders operating increasingly independently—and often unconstitutionally. At best, the breakdown into local fiefdoms is not necessarily consistent with political reconciliation at the center, the strategic goal of U.S. diplomats. At worst, power struggles among local leaders—particularly in the southern Shiite heartland—could erupt into all-out civil war. “If nobody wins, you could end up with different groups in charge of different cities,” says Vali Nasr, an Iraq expert at Tufts University. In a sense, it’s happening already. Even as Iraqis furiously denounce the nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution that suggested dividing their country into three relatively autonomous parts, Iraq has splintered into a hundred pieces.
John, several reasons why we replaced Sadam. Here’s Paul O’Neils take. One heck of a video that no one should miss.
http://tinyurl.com/2esfcq
Good link Hugh.
Here’s more fuel for the belief that from day one, Saddam was a target of this Administration.
George Bush took office in Jan 2001. In Nov., 2000, just two months earlier, Saddam started selling oil in euros, threatening the dollar’s value.
Even today, if Iran ends up in an alliance with whatever government comes out of Iraq, the oil will be sold, once again, in euros, causing more damage to the dollar. Iran just made Japan stop using dollars for oil purchases and the Iraq gov. if aligned with Iran, will do the same for all the nations the video pointed out were interested in Iraq’s oil fields.
There are so many hidden agenda’s with this administration they can’t even keep all of them straight themselves, anymore.
Jan
Great Point!!
The problem is front runners from both Parties are more of the same!
Hugh
I posted the video THANKS!!!!
“reasons why we replaced Saddam” ? ?
“Replaced” ?
.
Nevermind.
.
Why America Attacked, Invaded and Destroyed Another Sovereign Nation for No Good Reason.
1. Stolen 2000 election gave the impression that anything would be tolerated.
2. 9-11 gave president popularity rating to act without restraint.
3. Basic character of president and key advisers arrogant and rash.
4. Fundamental safeguards of the Constitution ignored.
5. Allies complacent.
6. Media complacent.
7. Courts complacent.
8. Electorate asleep.
David conveniently leaves out:
1. Mass genocide
2. Shooting at American aircraft
3. Plot to assassinate Bush41
4. Invasion of neighboring countries
5. Failure to comply with agreed upon treaties after GW1
6. Failure to comply with numerous UN demands unanimoulsy supported by the rest of the world
7. WMD
I know the truth sux for those on the left who gain joy from America losing. But there were many good, legitimate reasons to take out Saddam and America finally took action after a decade of complacency while the former president chased skirts instead of fighting terrorism.
bb,
Are you saying that these are the justifications?
I think we need to be very clear at this point: is this the list of justifications for the invasion, destruction and occupation of Another Sovereign Nation?
Because, if it is, . . .
Oh, boy!
David,
Yes, I would absolutely support invasion of a non-sovereign nation (Saddam lost sovereign status with his signature on UN treaties after getting his ass handed to him in GW1) based on the facts presented including repeated attacks against American planes trying to enforce agreed upon treaties.
What part of surrender do you fail to get David? Iraq lost in GW1 then willingly relinquished its privileges as a sovereign nation in the treaties. America did not invade an innocent, sovereign nation…we along with our allies conquered a mass genocidal rogue regime lead by corrupt forces receiving special treatment from certain members of the UN.
Stop whinning, we won the first part of the war and could accomplish complete victory in short order if not for all you querulous, panty wearing defeatocrats determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!