[lit-ideas] Re: Turning the tables...
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:39:05 -0800
Iraq under Saddam was not a counterweight to Islamism. Saddam
supported the Islamists. He paid the families of every successful suicide
bomber -- $25,000 if memory serves me.
Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party were secular. That's non-Islamic, to put
it plainly.
From the 1920s up to the early 80s, the US, British, and French installed secular,
pro-Western dictatorships in the Arab world. While some of these sometimes fought with
Western countries, they were of the same type.
Saddam supported the Hama suicide bombers in Israel because they were annoying Israel, but
only because of that. He did not support their Islamic politics. He had no interest in an
Islamic goverment or politics in Iraq, and he brutally suppressed any such movements in
Iraq. The leader of the Shiites, Ayatollah al-Sistani, lost practically every relative in
his family (something like 100 people) to Saddam's torturers.
The irony of the Bush war is that Bush toppled a secular government, only to watch an
Islamic government take over.
Saddam was indeed a counterweight to Islam. In the early days of the Iran Revolution, the US
feared they would export their revolution throughout the Muslim world. If they got tied up
in a war, then it would slow them down. Thus the USA, the USSR, France, and Saudi Arabia got
Iraq to attack Iran. The USA supplied unlimited weapons (guns, tanks, airplanes, missiles,
and chemical weapons). The Saudi gave Iraq $100 billion, plus an open acct for more money,
plus the promise to make up any loss in oil revenues.
Thus the Iraq-Iran War was a proxy war, in which USA, the USSR, France, and Saudi Arabia
attacked Iran in order to slow down the spread of Islamic fervor.
The USSR joined the game in order to slow down Islam in the southern USSR. Those areas are
Muslim and the Soviets didn't want more Islamic movements. I wouldn't be surprised if China
was also involved; they too have a large Muslim population in western China.
Why are the Iranians so suspicious of the USA? The US first installed a brutal dictatorship
in Iran that lasted 40 years, and then used Iraq to attack Iran for ten years. Over one
million died.
Bush made a castatrophic blunder in attacking Saddam. He removed the one government that was
(brutally) capable of stopping Islam. Last year, the Neocons started the drumbeat to attack
Syria. Syria is also secular, non-Islamic. Israel however saw what happened in Iraq and said
please, no regime change in Syria. Israel would much rather have the present Syrian
government than yet another Islamic government.
Lawrence writes elsewhere:
But if we use our smart bombs and put a few Special Forces on the ground in strategic
places in order to destroy their nuclear facilities, that would represent the least harm
to the Iranians we hope will eventually set up a peaceful regime. We can get in and get
out. How angry will they get if we destroy weapons they don't want in the first place?
The goal here is 1) destroy their capability to be a potential threat to Israel and 2)
install yet another puppet government on top of them. Now, why would they get angry over
that?
Lawrence, how angry would you get if a Soviet proposed to destroy the US's weapons
capability and then install a pro-Soviet puppet regime (for example, Hillary Clinton)? You
and me would be in the trees, taking pot shots at the occupiers. An successful attack on
Iran would be politically devastating to the USA. It'd really stir up the Muslims.
Marlene asks:
But, if Andreas is correct--why does he think that it would be in the best interest of the
USA to let Iran continue on its path? If doing so will lead to the fundamentalist Islamic
world taking over--then we will have things like what is happening to Hindus in Pakistan
(kidnapped girls being forced to marry Muslim men and thus converting--and never being
allowed to see their families again...) and so forth. Fundamentalism of any sort is not
what I would prefer to see running the world...
I don't think at all it would be in the best interests of the USA (or, better said, the
global economy) for Iran to continue on its path. The Islamic Republic is theocracy that
uses thugs to beat up and murder opponents. There is no meaningful political opposition;
candidates must first be approved by the clerics to even appear on a ballot. The Revolution
happened in 1979, so those born in 1980 are 25 years old by now. Everyone under the age of
35 didn't participate in that revolution, nor were they aware of Shah. In general, many want
to participate in the global economy and global culture: computers, the web, disco, TV,
makeup: all the good things in life. But Iran is frozen under a dogmatic theocracy that
prevents change. They are very large, very strong, and active. They support Islamic
movements in all Arab countries where there are secular governments.
But what can the USA do? Attacking them will only encourage them. It rallies the population
to national defense, even those who oppose the clerics.
My suggestion? Stop the boycotts. Let them buy books, computers, cellphones, etc. This
creates a web that spreads information. Stop the restrictive visa requirements. Generously
give young Iranians scholarships to study in the West. When the clerics are gone (and
they'll eventually get old and die off), Iran will become another member of the global
economy. Peace will break out.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
