Most Iraqis Aren't Radical Islamists...

[liberalpragmatist]

...but the Bush Administration shows it has a complete grasp of reality when it keeps trumpeting this (probably true) fact.

History has shown that during violent chaos, it's often the radicals that triumph. They're the best organized, strongest, and most effective against older regimes. People tend to rally to them b/c they seem to be working, unlike the moderate majority. Marriages of convenience are formed along the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"-line of thinking.

It's happened throughout.

The Nazis.

The Bolsheviks.

In what is perhaps most relevant, in Iran. Khomenei was admired by huge swaths of Iran b/c he opposed the Shah, so people respected him even if they didn't favor his politics. He also tapped into a very dedicated, passionate minority in favor or strict Islamicism, than directed anti-Western venom against the Shah and against the United States, in the process getting, of all people, Iran's large Marxist movement to back him b/c of his anti-Western policies.

And Khomenei appealed to some of the majority by insisting he favored democracy.

When the Shah fell, the power vacuum the resulted was ripe for Khomenei, who then over the next couple of years systematically took back his promises of democracy and crushed all opposition - from the majority. Islamic Democratic parties were crushed. Liberal parties were crushed. The Marxists were crushed.

BushCo. shows their incompetence by their inability to grasp that in times of chaos it doesn't matter what a majority thinks. It's what the most dedicated and most well-organized minority thinks.

Frankly, we're f*cked in Iraq and all we can hope for at this point is to get it reasonably stable and leave.

[WindRavenX]

1. Exactly, excellent post

Disclaimer: Saddam was a dictator and in no way am I condoning dictatorships in any way.
That said, it MUST be noted that Iraq was the most stable and SECULAR of any Middle Eastern nations; invading Iraq will most likely result in decades of political turmoil and a less secular state; possibly civil war. How on earth * and Rumsfield thought that invading and destroying Iraq's structure would result in MORE stability in the Middle East is something I just cannot fathom.
As other posts have suggested, the humanitarian conditions, especially for women, are going to become extremely poor.
We didn't even do jack shit in Afghanistan either- the Taliban is regrouping and humanitarian conditions, while improved from women, still need help.
Our foreign policy has just been a gigantic mess, and the people of these nations are suffering as a result.

[the_outsider]

2. Stability in middle east has nothing to do with Iraq invasion

do you think * and Rumsfeld actually believed it? That line is just meant for the masses.

Access to oil (which has not quite worked out as planned), transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a few well-connected corporations (socialized cost, privatized profits), distraction from real social and economic issues, curtailing civil liberties and most of all sustaining an environment of fear and hatred based on ignorance and racial prejudice ..

[WindRavenX]

3. I agree completely

I wasn't trying to find justification of the invasion by any means. I was merely pointing out that one argument- increasing stability in the Middle East- was false on all grounds. Sorry if I wasn't clearer! :hi:

[Disturbed]

4. Are these people plain stupid?

Were they overly optimistic is feeling that Iraqi resistence to colonization would be real limited and weak?

Maybe their limited goal was to stop Iraq from selling oil via the Euro and that whatever resistence to colonization was going to be worth the price. After all, it's the American Middle Class and below that are paying for the war in lives a dollars. Afghanistan pipeline still on the drawing board.