US 'liberators' in Iraq: 'Starve a dog and he will follow you anywhere'
Brian | 18.03.2006 07:39
...
Understanding this dynamic is vital to appreciating the rationales behind a set of US policies in Iraq that at almost every turn have seemed to be characterized by strategic shortsightedness and sometimes outright incompetence. Such criticisms make sense only if we assume that the US has actually sought to create a vibrant, democratic Iraq. If we assume that its true goals have been less philanthropic - for example, securing a long-term if reduced military presence in the country and a strong degree of influence in the disposition of its oil resources - then the chaos, corruption and violence that have plagued the country for the past three years make more sense.
As a senior intelligence aid to former Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L Paul Bremer explained to a colleague of mine when asked about why US forces failed to rebuild in years what it took Saddam Hussein to do in months after the first Gulf War in 1981, "There's an old Arab proverb: If you starve a dog he'll follow you anywhere."
In other words, why bother fixing a country when your strategy is to break the will of its people so they accept a post-occupation system, tailored to US interests, that they would otherwise not tolerate? Indeed, with Bush on record saying that the United States would leave Iraq if asked to do so, a primary consideration of US strategy has had to be making sure that the Shi'ites and Kurds never felt comfortable enough to pop the question.
etc
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC01Ak05.html
Understanding this dynamic is vital to appreciating the rationales behind a set of US policies in Iraq that at almost every turn have seemed to be characterized by strategic shortsightedness and sometimes outright incompetence. Such criticisms make sense only if we assume that the US has actually sought to create a vibrant, democratic Iraq. If we assume that its true goals have been less philanthropic - for example, securing a long-term if reduced military presence in the country and a strong degree of influence in the disposition of its oil resources - then the chaos, corruption and violence that have plagued the country for the past three years make more sense.
As a senior intelligence aid to former Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L Paul Bremer explained to a colleague of mine when asked about why US forces failed to rebuild in years what it took Saddam Hussein to do in months after the first Gulf War in 1981, "There's an old Arab proverb: If you starve a dog he'll follow you anywhere."
In other words, why bother fixing a country when your strategy is to break the will of its people so they accept a post-occupation system, tailored to US interests, that they would otherwise not tolerate? Indeed, with Bush on record saying that the United States would leave Iraq if asked to do so, a primary consideration of US strategy has had to be making sure that the Shi'ites and Kurds never felt comfortable enough to pop the question.
etc
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC01Ak05.html
Brian
