|
Israel pro western iraq { October 15 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1004"Don't worry, you won't have any problem with Saddam." Lantos reportedly added, "In his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you."
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1004
Iraq Is No Stage for MacArthur-Japan Sequel
By James Pinkerton
Fellow
Newsday
October 15, 2002
Does the United States want to bring democracy to Iraq? Maybe, but maybe not bring it right away.
An early indicator that America is in no hurry to democratize Baghdad was found in a report in the Sept. 30 edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) was quoted as telling a visiting Israeli, "Don't worry, you won't have any problem with Saddam." Lantos reportedly added, "In his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." For his part, Lantos calls the quote a "total fabrication." For its part, Ha'aretz has not published a retraction.
But whatever the truth about Lantos, there's evidence that others in Washington are envisioning autocracy, not democracy, for Iraq. On Friday, The New York Times reported that administration officials were "coalescing around" the idea of an American military commander assuming the leadership role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur played in Japan from 1945 to 1951. During that time, MacArthur, whose formal title was supreme commander of the Allied Powers, wielded near-dictatorial power over the country. And a similar military government held sway in West Germany from 1945 to 1949, with the occupation fully ending in 1955. Both occupations, of course, were great democratic successes.
So can we expect the same results in Iraq? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer seems to think so. On Friday, he predicted U.S. troops would be regarded as "liberators, not conquerors" when and if they arrive in Iraq. To be sure, it's hard to get a true gauge of Iraqi public opinion, but indicators of Arab and other Muslim sentiment suggest such confidence could be misplaced.
For instance, the Oct. 5 Al-Hayat, an Arabic-language daily published in London, cited a poll showing that Yasser Arafat would receive 60 percent of the vote of Palestinians. But, the article continued, 80 percent of those polled support a continuation of "military operations" against Israel. As far as most Americans are concerned, "military operations" is a sorry euphemism for terrorism. But by whatever name, attacks on Americans and Westerners - in the Philippines, Yemen, Kuwait, Indonesia - provide some insight into Islamic opinion. And do we hear loud condemnation of these attacks in the Muslim world, even from such allies as Saudi Arabia?
One might also look to last Thursday's elections in Pakistan, in which Islamic parties challenged the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Despite a vote-counting process widely criticized as rigged by the government - a team of election observers from the European Union denounced it as "seriously flawed" - the Islamists, running on an anti-American platform, won control of two of the four provincial governments and hold the third-largest bloc of seats in the parliament.
But what of the "1945 precedent" put forth by the Bush administration? The Japanese and Germans fought hard, but then surrendered and were immediately pacified. Couldn't that be a model for calming Muslim militancy? Perhaps, but the differences between the Axis Powers and the Baghdad branch of today's "Axis of Evil" are greater than the similarities. Germany and Japan were not just defeated; they were utterly crushed. Some estimates say 2.2 million Japanese and 6.1 million Germans (not including Jews) were killed. The point is not to weep for the aggressors, but to note that such shattering losses seem to have genuinely changed the mind-set of the survivors - if for no other reason than that the number of young militarists was dramatically reduced.
Moreover, after the defeat of fascism, virtually no fascists remained anywhere in the world, leaving neo-fascists with no chance to rally. By contrast, if America invades Iraq, some 1.2 billion Muslims will still influence the politics of countries from Morocco to Malaysia. So it's an open question: Will Iraqis model themselves after the Americans astride their country, or will they seek aid and comfort from their fellow Muslims around the world?
On Saturday, President George W. Bush seemed to back away from the MacArthurian benevolent-dictator scenario. America would "never seek to impose our culture or our form of government" on any nation, he pledged. Such soft words might sound unthreatening to Muslims today. But if America occupies Iraq, it's a safe bet that a hard order will be the new order over there.
Copyright: 2002 Newsday
|
|
