h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've been listening to the radio and reading the papers about Iraq recently (as have many people).

Something is becoming clear. Yes, Iraq is generally pleased that the US and her allies kicked out Saddam (which is more than understandable) but it's becoming clear that resentment is rising at the US, and not only for having troops in their country.

One major initial problem was lawlessness. It became clear early on that the US had not prepared for policing Iraq as well as occupying it. The lawlessness is slowly being brought under control, with Iraqi police officers working alongside US troops in "dual patrols" and attempting to "build bridges" with Iraqi civilians. However, looting and other lawbreaking is still occuring and the US, as the occupying power, is responsible for preventing this. Although it is slowly restoring the rule of law, it is clear it initially failed in it's responsibilities.

The other problem is humanitarian. Iraq had been a country living under wide-ranging sanctions for over ten years. It should have been clear to the US and Britain that these people were going to be in dire need of food and other supplies when they entered the country. Although ships were brought to Basra carrying such supplies, they were nowhere near adequate. Again, this is an oversight that cannot really be forgiven.

Of course, the cynic would say "ah, but the US doesn't care about these things". This is a fallacy, and an easy retort. The US *has* to care about these things. It was plain from early on that they were highly concerned about being welcomed by the Iraqis and not letting the country slip into anarchy. Both humanitarian aid and proper policing were essential for this. US intentions in Iraq were severly weakened by the failings in both these departments.

As far as I can see it, the US commanders have made a critical error. The US military is for fighting wars, not policing or supplying humanitarian aid. Therefore, Bush should have appealed to his more hostile allies (France, Germany etc) to supply humanitarian aid and UN/NATO specialist police units. If the anti-war position was truly about humanitarian concern/international law then I don't see how anyone could argue that providing these was going against that position. Especially the former.

The whole scenario seems to have suggested that Bush should stop believing the myth that the US can take these actions without any sort of outside support. It is becoming clearer that international aid is going to be necessary to fight these "new" kinds of wars. Perhaps the dummy-spitters in Europe and the US should sit around a table again and decide how these sorts of things will be done in the furture. I certainly hope so.

Interesting post. I'll try to post a responce later.

Yes, Zagreb, Iraq seems to be in as much as a shambles now as it was when the British gained control. Perhaps even more so, seeing as it's been discovered that nearly every household owns a firearm of somesort. Perhaps revolution will come even quicker than I expect, eh?

I said long before the war that the US plan for a shining new Iraq that would show the whole Middle East what following the American plan would do was pie in the sky. I said that the US troops would become increasingly bogged down with guerilla warfare and local resistance. I figured all that out - and I don't even read the papers properly! That White House analysts missed it all almost beggars belief.

Yes, the US is losing the peace. Since Saddam Hussein does not seem to have had MWD (still awaiting apologies to Hans Blix from those who questioned his competence for saying that), the US is no safer by removing Saddam from power. Since I have no doubt that al-Qaeda has had a huge recruitment boost from the whole thing, it is probably fair to say that the world is now a far more dangerous place for America and Americans. Nice one Dubya.

In fact, given the sorry state that Iraq is now in, the fact that the Middle East might see the consequences of US policy seems more like a worry than a promise.

Someone quoted a pop fact at me the other week - the US has 'intervened' in something like 30+ countries since WW2. Not one has had democratic elections since.

Sorry, I am unlikely to be able to respond to any further postings as I will be off-line for a while.

Gif

A lot of people thought the US would be "bogged down" by guerilla fighting *during* the war. They didn't. The guerilla fighting has been initiated by non-state forces (ie militias) and is occuring *after* the US removed Saddam.

I don't think Iraq is in a shambles. A report on BBC radio said that the electricity/water etc is now back on. The thing was, this was two months after the removal of the regime. It should have been a matter of weeks.

The anger of the Iraqi citizens (I don't include the guerillas, here) is justified. Perhaps the occupying powers should start listening to them more.