The NYTIMES has obligingly carried a Saudi warning about Iraq; a prince of the House of Saud thinks that Iraq will devolve into civil war and fall apart into 3 nations:
Prince Saud said he met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week and added that American officials generally responded to his warnings by telling him that the United States successfully carried off the Iraqi elections and "they say the same things about the constitution" and the broader situation in Iraq now. On Thursday, in fact, the senior administration official said, "The forward movement of the political process is the best answer." Prince Saud argued: "But what I am trying do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it. A constitution alone won't do it." Prince Saud is a son of the late King Faisal and has been foreign minister for 30 years.
Er um, since when do we take advice about constitutionalism and democracy from a non-constitutional KINGDOM which has a horrific human rights record - like Saudi Arabia!? Sheesh.
AND ANOTHER THING: who says 3 nations instead of "one Iraq" would be a bad thing!? Kurdistan would be a GREAT GREAT GREAT country and ally to the USA - UNAMBIGUOUSLY SO! And a Sunni nation that is run by Zarqawi!? WE COULD BOMB IT INTO OBLIVION WITHOUT A SECOND OF HEISTATION! And a Shia nation on Iran's border!? It might be the best way to truly DEMOCRATIZE Iran - BECAUSE SISTANI BELIEVES IN THE SEPARATION OF CLERICS AND STATE.
Let's stop worrying and stay the course; no matter which way you slice it, we're on the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY. Human rights and demcracy always have been, and always will be. The people who oppose liberty - or fear it - are on the wrong side of history - and always have been.
BTW: I think that the USA response to this Prince was RIGHT ON (repeat): On Thursday, in fact, the senior administration official said, "The forward movement of the political process is the best answer." AS FREDERIC TURNER notes (please scroll down): WE ARE THE REVOLUTION, and the reactionaries - whether from the House of Saud or from al Qaeda, or the post-modern Left - WILL NEVER STOP THE MARCH OF FREEDOM.
3 comments:
Why do you expect the US government to understand Iraq better than the Saudi government? The Saudi's have been right next to Iraq for a long time, and probably have a much better understanding of what the people are thinking. Most of what I have read also suggests that a lot of the insurgency is an attempt by the Sunni's to maintain a strong central government in Iraq, while the Kurds definitely want an independant country and the Shiite's seem to want local authority. There is undoubtably also some amount of anti-US sentiment being expressed by the insurgency, but at least some of it is internal problems in Iraq. Everything seems to be pointing to a civil war as soon as we pull out, because the Sunnis want things to remain as they were while the Kurds and Shiites want to have local authority.
I do not have a strong opinion on whether splitting Iraq would be a good thing or a bad thing, but it does seem like large parts of Iraq want it to be split.
James
the saudis have their own agenda, and sometimes what they see and say has more to do with that than with anything esle.
ESPECIALLY when it comes to forging a democracy: they have NOTHING to tell us. ZERO. ZIP. BUPKUS. ZILCH. NADA.
We have forged democracies before: germany, japan, south korea, the phillipines, panam, granada, etc etc etc and so forth and so on.
it's HARD WORK.
it takes resolve.
it's not "fit work" for princes or socialists.
Post a Comment