Posted on 03/30/2003 7:51:50 PM PST by gaucho
Why didn't southern Iraq rise against Saddam in support of the Americans? This question that is preoccupying the world can be answered in two different ways.
First, the people of the south are nationalists and they hate foreigners when they come as occupiers and invaders. The people of southern Iraq entered history with the "revolution of the 20th" against the British and they are proud of their race, blood, and kinship. They have embraced several radical parties opposed to imperialism. They have been secular communists and members of the religious Al-Da'wah party. The prevailing political currents in the region have shaped them and they have also played a role in producing such currents. Throughout all this time, their patriotism and nationalism remained firm and constant. During the Iraqi-Iranian war, they defended their land against the Iranians and when the Americans abandoned the 1991 uprising their worst opinion about Washington was confirmed. The US policy on Iran reinforced their divergent views between caution toward and hostility against the United States. The siege hurt them like all the other Iraqis and the Iraqi regime succeeded in portraying the siege to them as solely the responsibility of the United States. In a nutshell, they are like some of the Soviet republics that suffered greatly at the hands of Stalin but that supported him when the Soviet Union was invaded during the Second World War.
Second, the people of southern Iraq have not risen yet because they are afraid. The resistance in the south is being orchestrated by Ali Hasan al-Majid and everyone knows the savagery and ferocity of "chemical Ali". Out of an army of one million and a Republican Guard that exceeds 70,000 men, 50,000 men can be taken aside to terrorize and strangle the south. This is not a resistance movement. It is suppressive and military groups that ambush the advance of the US army. Had the opposition been stronger or had the Americans succeeded in preparing it and giving it a bigger role, the uprising of the south would have taken over the situation without any help from the Americans. This is the whole issue. The south cannot forget the tens of thousands that Saddam (and the resistance man Ali Hasan al-Majid) have butchered. It will not forget the scores of thousands that were forced to find refuge abroad. It will not forget the desecration of its religious establishments that are the backbone of its civic society. The south will not forget the draining of the marshlands. There is no doubt that its trust in the Americans weakened after 1991 but its hatred of Saddam did not weaken. The southerners are waiting for a signal that may come based on developments in the north or in Baghdad or in Basra itself or in the arrival of 120,000 additional soldiers.
Both these analyses are feasible or logical. The absence of information makes both analyses -- despite the disparity between them -- possible. Most probably, the truth is a mixture of both. Therefore, let us wait for a few days and see what happens. At any rate, not all who support the "liberation" are Rumsfeld's agents just as not all those who the support the "resistance" are Ali Hasan al-Majid's agents. None of them are like that but both sides are the captives of their absolute and sole vision. The coming few days will be crucial. The coming few days will force or should force the proponents of both views to a "fierce" review of their visions if the other vision turns out to be true.
-----------------------
They'd need to be crazy to do so. They'd be making themselves vulnerable to U. S. mistakes or policy changes. They'd incur the wrath of much of the Muslim world. There is no guarantee that any new government will be an improvement over what they have.
The short form: If even one of these tribal-warlord-fuedal Theocracies is ever dragged into the 21'st Century, to become some form of Democratic Republic or Parliamentary-Democracy, the rest of them will fall quickly, and they know it, hence, the obvious subjugation of women, and brutal treatment of any dissidents.
Iranians are at the point of revolt, and the Saudis are sliding down their razor-blade-of life.
The non-elected rulers of so many Countries in the Middle East, rich-in-oil, and lavishing the riches on themselves, are terrified of losing control after 1400 years.
It isn't about Islam, which I personally feel is an abomination (I've read the Koran), but it's just about power, and terror to retain that power. < /rant>............FRegards
-----------------------------------
Those who don't toe the line in that part of the world can expect a remaining life span of hours or minutes. Anwar Sadat found that out the hard way a couple of decades ago. The Shiites are well aware of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.