January 23, 2004

TOTALITARIANS OR DEMOCRATS?:

Why Saddam's arrest did matter (Marc Erikson , 1/24/04, Asia Times)

Some tribes might fight on. Tribes always do. But the majority of Ba'ath Party members, religion never having been their thing, now have every reason to be just ordinary Iraqis ("good Germans") and make their peace with the occupying powers - the more so as the occupiers are the only ones who can protect their interests against the majority Shi'ites, whom they once helped suppress.

The Americans know this, but they have to step carefully. They cannot simply
reinstitute Ba'ath Party members and officials in positions of power. There
has to be a show at "de-Ba'athification" much as in Germany there had to be
a credible effort at de-Nazification. Of course, de-Nazification went only so far. For example, US intelligence struck a deal with Hitler's eastern-front military intelligence chief, Major-General Reinhard Gehlen, under which intelligence files and 350 intelligence officers came under US control and the "Gehlen Org" was formed, which later became the core group of the West German foreign-intelligence service (BND) headed by Gehlen. Moreover, tens of thousands of former Nazi officials, after a quick rinse, got their Persilschein (detergent certificate) and resumed leading functions in the civil service.

I cannot point to any concrete evidence that similar arrangements are
currently being made in Iraq. But I would be most surprised if it weren't
so. The old connections are there, much as the compelling logic of political
alignments. Paul Bremer's US occupation authority has made its deal with the
Kurdish minority and guaranteed it a substantial degree of autonomy. The
ex-Ba'ath Sunnis need protection against Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's
Shi'ites, who are bent on retribution and exercising control in the new Iraqi state. The Americans need leverage against al-Sistani and intelligence information on unreconstructed Ba'athists and foreign fighters.

When thousands of Shi'ites took to the streets of Baghdad this week, they
called for direct elections and carried signs reading, "Saddam war criminal,
not prisoner of war". It will have sent a chill down Saddam loyalists'
spines. There are scores to settle. If the Americans left, it would be civil war - and the Sunnis wouldn't win it. The Americans won't leave. Too much has been invested and can't be written down. For better or worse, the Sunni Iraqis and Ba'athists at their core and the American occupiers are natural allies in the political wars ahead.


To finish off his analogy and analysis all Mr. Erikson has to do is explain why the U.S. should have allied itself with Nazi party remnants and tried preventing Konrad Adenauer and the Christian Democrats from taking over post-Hitler Germany, as he's suggesting we join with the totalitarians to oppose al-Sistani and the Shi'a democrats now.

MORE:
Winning the Peace (Clifford D. May, January 22, 2004, Townhall)

On a conventional battlefield, America is second to none. Slowly and painfully, we also are mastering the skills necessary to win a low-intensity but high-anxiety war against a shadow army of insurgents and jihadi terrorists. As for the third great challenge facing America – helping bring democracy to parts of the world that have known only oppression -- well, in this realm there is cause for serious concern.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 23, 2004 09:00 AM
Comments

There is no equivalence between Postwar Nazi Germany and Iraq. The Shi'ites and the Kurds need to have the opportunity to deal with the higher level Ba'athists and bring justice to those for their crimes and amnesty to those judged innocent.

The Sunni, in active resistance, need to be scourged with the help of the Sunni who seek normalcy; we must provide those who aid us with protection.

Once that is accomplished they may all look forward rather than to the past, assuming the Arabs are capable of doing so.

Please excuse the tone of Saddam like pronouncements.

P.S. Why shouldn't we become the champions of a greater Kurdistan stretching from Syria to Iran, inclusively, with Kirkuk as its capital? That's an interesting question with no simple answers. Need to think more about it.

Posted by: genecis at January 23, 2004 10:23 AM

genecis:

Whether we're the champions or not, we made Shi'astan and Kurdistan inevitable.

Posted by: oj at January 23, 2004 10:28 AM

We should back independent Kurdistan because 1) it is the American thing to do; 2) it is the right thing to do; 3) it would be one in the eye for our enemies the Turks, Persians, Arabs, Syrians and Russians.

It's a win/win/win for us, so obviously we won't do it.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 24, 2004 01:43 PM
« BORDER PATROL: | Main | ANGLONAUTS: »