US Occupation Of Iraq Offers Arab People Hope
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">An op-ed piece by Mohammed H. Ghuloum</div> This is a reprint of an article in USA Today (via yahoo... original link <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030407/cm_usatoday/5040803&cid=679&ncid=1501' target='_blank'>here</a>). In it, the author, who is presupposedly an Arab and an economist, talks about problems in the middle east region and how Iraqi democratization might be the answer. An interesting read, with some historical background that is sometimes missing from some of this forum's poster's knowledge (and with some of his points sounding as though they were plagiarized from my earlier posts! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Comments welcome.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>U.S. occupation of Iraq offers Arab people hope</b>
Mon Apr 7, 5:49 AM ET? Add Op/Ed - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!
Mohammed H. Ghuloum
When I try to put the Middle East political situation into perspective, I recall 1996, when I lived in Kuwait. Benjamin Netanyahu (news - web sites) was seeking Shimon Peres' job as Israel's prime minister. On election night, many people in Arab countries watched what was happening in Israel as if it were a work of science fiction. Those who could tuned in to CNN or Israeli satellite TV to see something that could never happen in their homelands: a free, democratic election -- that the ruling party lost!
That night I saw with clarity the depths to which politics in the Arab world had sunk. The region -- my region -- was so out of step with the rest of the world that only an external shock could break the inertia that keeps it mired in a political twilight zone.
A U.S. victory over Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could provide that shock.
Winds of real change -- winds of democracy -- are blowing into the Arab Middle East for the first time in almost a century. Those who stand to gain the most, the Arab people, don't even realize it. But their governments do -- and they fear it. That is why state-controlled media have ratcheted up the anti-American rhetoric, even in ''allied'' Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
This war has potential ramifications unseen since British troops trounced the Turks and marched into Jerusalem, Damascus and Baghdad in 1917-1918. That was a great shock to the Middle East, and a much-needed one. The new Arab political power system that emerged then was based on the idea of nation-states, with the eventual hope of some form of Western-style governance.
Little lasting effect
But after the British departed, the Arab countries, left to their own devices, essentially split between traditional absolute monarchies and fascist-inspired military juntas. The Arab world settled into a stagnant pattern of un-elected governments incapable of providing peace and prosperity.
Un-elected regimes survive through fear, intimidation and the use of patronage that comes with state control of resources. Economic reforms and their short-term political costs are anathema to these regimes. That is largely why the region's economies, outside the oil sectors, are stagnant.
The Arab world has seen many more wars since World War I. All were traumatic, but not enough to shake the stranglehold of absolute monarchies and military-backed despots. Today, not a single head of government among the 22 members of the Arab League was chosen in an open popular election.
Into fundamentalism's depths
Less than 20 years ago, the main political opposition still came from secularists who decried the lack of democracy and accountability. It is a sign of the depth of the descent of Arab politics that today's most active opponents of the existing order, Islamic fundamentalists, want more repression and intrusive forms of totalitarianism.
Now the war in Iraq (news - web sites) promises a significant upheaval in the Arab ruling system -- unless it is aborted by the regional ruling structures. That explains last week's latest proposal from Saudi Arabia that Saddam abdicate. The quid pro quo undoubtedly would be the creation of a ''benevolent'' Iraqi dictatorial regime in the current Arab mold, thereby killing any hope for the Iraqi people to make a clean break with the type of dynastic-dictatorial regimes that cling to power throughout the Arab world.
Momentous defeats such as the one Saddam faces historically bring on serious soul-searching by the vanquished side. But in Arab countries, such defeats tend to lead to denial and a search for foreign scapegoats. With a paucity of conquering heroes to hail in modern times, state-controlled media hail the conquered heroes: Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt after 1967 or Saddam after 1988 and 1991.
Following World War II, German and Japanese soul-searching led to the creation of democratic states, but only after complete surrender and temporary occupation. That may be the problem with recent Arab defeats: They did not lead to full surrenders and regime change.
This will offend many in my native Middle East, but perhaps what Iraq needs now is a couple of years of American-British occupation. Only then will it have any chance of becoming a guiding example for neighboring countries.
Mohammed H. Ghuloum, an economist who has worked in public and private institutions in Kuwait, lives in the Seattle area.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>U.S. occupation of Iraq offers Arab people hope</b>
Mon Apr 7, 5:49 AM ET? Add Op/Ed - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!
Mohammed H. Ghuloum
When I try to put the Middle East political situation into perspective, I recall 1996, when I lived in Kuwait. Benjamin Netanyahu (news - web sites) was seeking Shimon Peres' job as Israel's prime minister. On election night, many people in Arab countries watched what was happening in Israel as if it were a work of science fiction. Those who could tuned in to CNN or Israeli satellite TV to see something that could never happen in their homelands: a free, democratic election -- that the ruling party lost!
That night I saw with clarity the depths to which politics in the Arab world had sunk. The region -- my region -- was so out of step with the rest of the world that only an external shock could break the inertia that keeps it mired in a political twilight zone.
A U.S. victory over Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could provide that shock.
Winds of real change -- winds of democracy -- are blowing into the Arab Middle East for the first time in almost a century. Those who stand to gain the most, the Arab people, don't even realize it. But their governments do -- and they fear it. That is why state-controlled media have ratcheted up the anti-American rhetoric, even in ''allied'' Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
This war has potential ramifications unseen since British troops trounced the Turks and marched into Jerusalem, Damascus and Baghdad in 1917-1918. That was a great shock to the Middle East, and a much-needed one. The new Arab political power system that emerged then was based on the idea of nation-states, with the eventual hope of some form of Western-style governance.
Little lasting effect
But after the British departed, the Arab countries, left to their own devices, essentially split between traditional absolute monarchies and fascist-inspired military juntas. The Arab world settled into a stagnant pattern of un-elected governments incapable of providing peace and prosperity.
Un-elected regimes survive through fear, intimidation and the use of patronage that comes with state control of resources. Economic reforms and their short-term political costs are anathema to these regimes. That is largely why the region's economies, outside the oil sectors, are stagnant.
The Arab world has seen many more wars since World War I. All were traumatic, but not enough to shake the stranglehold of absolute monarchies and military-backed despots. Today, not a single head of government among the 22 members of the Arab League was chosen in an open popular election.
Into fundamentalism's depths
Less than 20 years ago, the main political opposition still came from secularists who decried the lack of democracy and accountability. It is a sign of the depth of the descent of Arab politics that today's most active opponents of the existing order, Islamic fundamentalists, want more repression and intrusive forms of totalitarianism.
Now the war in Iraq (news - web sites) promises a significant upheaval in the Arab ruling system -- unless it is aborted by the regional ruling structures. That explains last week's latest proposal from Saudi Arabia that Saddam abdicate. The quid pro quo undoubtedly would be the creation of a ''benevolent'' Iraqi dictatorial regime in the current Arab mold, thereby killing any hope for the Iraqi people to make a clean break with the type of dynastic-dictatorial regimes that cling to power throughout the Arab world.
Momentous defeats such as the one Saddam faces historically bring on serious soul-searching by the vanquished side. But in Arab countries, such defeats tend to lead to denial and a search for foreign scapegoats. With a paucity of conquering heroes to hail in modern times, state-controlled media hail the conquered heroes: Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt after 1967 or Saddam after 1988 and 1991.
Following World War II, German and Japanese soul-searching led to the creation of democratic states, but only after complete surrender and temporary occupation. That may be the problem with recent Arab defeats: They did not lead to full surrenders and regime change.
This will offend many in my native Middle East, but perhaps what Iraq needs now is a couple of years of American-British occupation. Only then will it have any chance of becoming a guiding example for neighboring countries.
Mohammed H. Ghuloum, an economist who has worked in public and private institutions in Kuwait, lives in the Seattle area.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-makiya033103.asp' target='_blank'>Suggested course of action</a>
and
<a href='http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,82982,00.html' target='_blank'>The means to carry it out</a>
however.....
I have a problem with the UN weapons inspectors, and indeed the UN being completely bypassed.
As for the piece on Iraq:
There is no such thing better than democracy that would help the Middle East. Basically if they don't start getting democracies we will probably keep getting mad hatters pop up now and then, in a frequence much higher than in the democratic world. No government is nutter proof alas. I agree with the piece. It's just my great worry that US/UK etc. won't be able to pull it off due to something going wrong down the line. And why? Because so many countries have an opinion about what there has to be done with Iraq. And so boiling hot a nationalistic climate that seems to be in the middle east. Right now, I get the impression that it takes but one shot fired in anger to set the entire middle east's public opinion into a conflagraration. That is hampering any effort to "change" stuff in the Middle east.
You got lots of monarchs and dictators who has EVERYTHIN to lose in a democratization proces. And then you got (near rampant) pan-arabic nationalism to fight too. It is my opinion that the fierce pan-arabic nationalism/proudness is a convenient tool of the powers that be in the Middle East. Nice little outlet for the oppressed public to vent their frustrations, instead of turning them inwards to topple their own troubled regimes. Israel is one of those issues too, nice and convenient to cloud the real issues: the many problems with regimes that are suppressing their citizens.
If you dont pull a "Marshall Act" or "Japan provisional government" stunt as was done after WWII, you risk ending up with a new Balkan clash but on a much larger scale. We see it in Africa too. Old colonies gettign free reins, everything goes from bad to Terrible. It's not the democratization in it self that is the problem, as much as it is how they are or are not implemented. The best way to pull out from a colonial role/provisional government would be to slowly phase out the old ruling style (dictatorship, monarchy) with more liberal ways. While this is done the citizens are brought up to a new role, not thrown into the new political reality head first and left to fend for them selves. Slowly loosen the reins while making sure that no smart arsed rebel or new dictator makes some nasty maneouevers that would spoil everthing the nation tried to build up towards.
Remember it's not because democracies have inherently nicer people in them that we dont see so many terrible things, it's because we have so many checks and guards against evil people. In young democracies where the established institutions of courts, parliament etc. arent in place that you can destroy a budding nation's hope for democratic rule by a snazzy little coup de etat.
Strangely enough, it almost sounds like you are describing Australia's, New Zealand's, or Canada's past there, we're just a bunch of youngsters as far as countries age go.
I want to comment more, but I feel I am not knowledgable enough on the subject of democracy and the middle-east. Then again, is anyone? I geuss that's the point of this thread, eh?
Democracy is a funny old thing. I always remember back to Civilisation 2 saying "Democracy is excellent but fragile. You need to be prosperous for it to work" The game had a lot of truth in it when it made that comment.
It's wrong to look at what we enjoy in the west and say "right, let's apply that to country x". All of our democratic goverments (Japan being the exception here) came into being through a long process which gradually eased society into this government form. Even the US, which remains a revolutionary country, was heavily democratised at a state and public level prior to the War of Independance. Dumping democracy on a people and expecting it to work is fairly naive. It was tried in China in the 1910's and 20's, and was a complete failure; a nation and people who had been ruled by absolute monarchs for over 2,000 years had no idea how to approach this new government.
Another prime example would be Russia. A mere 13 years ago the USSR was the 2nd most powerful nation on earth, feared worldwide and respected by the world community. Now, Russia is dismissed by most western nations and considered a wreak, an entity which given decades might come to something but right now is not worthy of even respect. The resurgance of the communist party in Russia and Putin's gradual trend towards more authoritarian rule is stark evidence that what people want, at the end of the day, is something that works. Freedom doesn't feed your family.
Iraq already has deep problems that democracy may be hard pressed to solve. The Kurds in the north will want a say in the government, if not the formation of their own government, but Turkey will never allow an independant Kurdish state. Shi'ite muslims in the south will want greater autonomy and equal representation in the government, which could easily cause clashes with the majority Sunni muslims. Trying to satisfy everyone can lead to angering everyone.
There is, for us in the west, a tendancy to think that democracy is the best government for everyone and that everyone thus should have it. And why should we not assume this? We are prosperous, wealthy and enjoy a higher standard of living than most of the world. Countries where democracy is brought to, such as Iraq, must look at the west and think "Well, if we have democracy, we'll have all that good stuff as well". Iraq is one place where this could actually happen, thanks to the country's immense oil reserves. It remains to be seen if the US companies currently given contracts to rebuild Iraq really will hand the wells over to the Iraqis in the future, but that's another story.
Someone once said "properous democracies do not delcare war on each other". But for a country to be prosperous it needs the means for prosperity. Afghanistan has been liberated from the Taliban now for over 18 months. Yet no amount of demoracy will ever make Afghanistan properous. For the poor countries of the world, what they want is food, shelter and peace. Democracy alone can't bring that. It's a start, but the instability of many new democratic governments and the constant problem of corruption mean that the world's budding democracies may prove to be more harm than good.
Also I'm sure the coallition wouldn't want to mess with the Torah should it feel Israel was breaking UN resolutions (15 and counting) even if you could persuade me (little chance) that it would step in to stop human rights abuses in the west bank.
It reminds me of nothing more than the fight between nation and church that went on under the Tudors (most particuarly Henry VIII). The seperation of state and church irrevocably moved societal norms to statist, not church determined values. (I'm not saying thats wrong) This hasn't happened with Islam, and surgical removal of government to be replaced with a snazzy new democratic model ignores this.
Now no-one could argue that Saddam was Mr Congeniality, or that he was a regular church goers and (American TV reference) no Mr Rogers. He deserves to go, and I don't think many Muslims would hold him up as a paragon of that faith. All I'm saying is that installation of a wholly westernised democratic government is bound to be problematic in the extreme. The coallition completes its job by removing Saddam from power and returning power to the Iraqi people. It was reported recently that whilst Blair wants to pull out after Saddam is removed and governmnt handed back to the population, Bush is arguing that longer term involvement is necessary. That is abhorrent. They should be allowed to determine their own government, and the installation of a government most acceptable to the US is on the same path (if not the same level) as an invading force installing a puppet regime. Can you smell something Vichy? Surely"helping" Iraq choose a form of government in teh long term is entirely undemocratic? Should Iraq wish to become democrtic in the Western model, then by all means provide assistance if requested. Pushing it down their throats in ignorance of their way of life is practically dictatorial
Ignoring the issues about bypassing the UN for the moment, the coallitions stated role (well, originally) was to hand back Iraq to the Iraqis, to remove Saddam and his regime.
Let them choose an government acceptable to them politically and religiously. Should they wish to elect another muderous dictator, thats their choice, no-one elses. Yes, I am proposing that if they make a bad choice we go in and help them again. Thats the international responsibilty of nation states. Its almost as bad as the CIA propping up a certain dictator with intel and money and (alledgedly) weapons under the Reagan administration during the Iran/Iraq war....
Its early, my workload is immense, and I'm tired, so apologies if that's a bit garbled.....
Democracy is a funny old thing. I always remember back to Civilisation 2 saying "Democracy is excellent but fragile. You need to be prosperous for it to work" The game had a lot of truth in it when it made that comment.
It's wrong to look at what we enjoy in the west and say "right, let's apply that to country x". All of our democratic goverments (Japan being the exception here) came into being through a long process which gradually eased society into this government form. Even the US, which remains a revolutionary country, was heavily democratised at a state and public level prior to the War of Independance. Dumping democracy on a people and expecting it to work is fairly naive. It was tried in China in the 1910's and 20's, and was a complete failure; a nation and people who had been ruled by absolute monarchs for over 2,000 years had no idea how to approach this new government.
Another prime example would be Russia. A mere 13 years ago the USSR was the 2nd most powerful nation on earth, feared worldwide and respected by the world community. Now, Russia is dismissed by most western nations and considered a wreak, an entity which given decades might come to something but right now is not worthy of even respect. The resurgance of the communist party in Russia and Putin's gradual trend towards more authoritarian rule is stark evidence that what people want, at the end of the day, is something that works. Freedom doesn't feed your family. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Marshall Plan and our consequent sending of aid money to Western Europe is probably why Germany is not a Communist country right now (and of course, the French would have soon fallen after that <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->). There definitely needs to be a large amount of money spent to help Iraq develop and strengthen its economy before we can hope for a stable government.
A poor government can do little to help its people, no matter whom the people elect to govern, and that leads to dissatisfaction with the system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - Kuwait, liberated from Iraqi occupation more than 12 years ago by a US-led coalition, joyously welcomed the end of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. </b>
Kuwaitis largely spent the day glued to the nearest television screen, watching intently as US tanks rolled into central Baghdad and a jubilant Iraqi population received them with open arms. The Kuwaitis had given American soldiers the very same welcome when their country was freed from a seven-month Iraqi occupation in February 1991 after the Gulf War (news - web sites). For many here, the most symbolic of events was the tearing down of Saddam's statue in downtown Baghdad, and if they couldn't exact revenge on the elusive Saddam himself, destroying his personality cult had to be the next best thing.
Ahmad, a 40-year-old, was watching events unfold as he had his hair cut at a barber shop in Kuwait City. "It's all very interesting. The images of the statue are amazing. It's a new era in the Arab world, and we're happy to see that. We hope there will be new democracy in the Arab world ... yes, the war was worth it," he told AFP. "People in Kuwait are happy with these scenes but they want the man himself," said Sulaiman Ibrahim. "Kuwaitis have a personal vendetta with Saddam. It's interesting that the Arab television stations are stunned, unable to understand what's going on while Kuwait was many steps ahead in anticipating the Iraqi response," Sulaiman said.
Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah congratulated Iraqis "on their liberation" and praised "the enormous efforts by the coalition forces." "The brotherly Iraqi people have suffered from several wars over these long years. They have the right to enjoy freedom and benefit from the wealth that has been stolen from them," he said in a statement.
Abdul Aziz, a Kuwaiti financial advisor, said he felt "great, but we wish they would catch Saddam, this is really what we want. And we want the Iraqi people to judge him." But Abdul Aziz said he felt it was too soon to talk about future relations with Iraq (news - web sites) "because we have many things to deal with before that," primarily the unresolved issue of 600-odd Kuwaitis still missing since the occupation. "I feel very, very happy," said Fatma Mulla. "I'm so happy for the Iraqi people. They're dancing in the streets. It's good the war has ended.
"But where is the Republican Guard and the Iraqi resistance? I think it was all lies," said Mulla, who confessed to watching television non-stop since the start of three-week war. "I want them to catch Saddam alive, and his two sons ... then hand them to the Kurds and to the Iraqis in the south, then I'd like to see what will happen. This is my dream," said civil servant Talib Abbas. The Iraqi people "are being liberated. They couldn't even talk about Saddam before the liberation," Abbas added.
Virtually everywhere here, the response was the same. Kuwaitis say they have waited more than 12 years to watch the downfall of Saddam, whose seven-month occupation and repeated threats thereafter tormented this tiny emirate. "This is a natural development following (US-led) military operations which started three weeks ago to liberate Iraq and bring freedom for the Iraqi people," a senior Kuwaiti official said of Wednesday's events. "It's what we expected in fact, from day one," the official told AFP, requesting anonymity.
Some, meanwhile, said they thought the war's outcome would serve as a lesson to other Arab rulers. "I've been glad since the war started ... this was an expected end," said Mohammed al-Jassim, editor of the mass-circulating Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan. "Sure, I welcome it, not just as a Kuwaiti but as an Arab who wants to see a good future. The fall of Saddam will give the other states enough indication that they have to do something for their own people or they may face the same future. "Today is a clear lesson for dictatorships in the Arab world. I think they should start looking for ways to change their people's lives," said Jassim.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The fall of Baghdad provoked shock and disbelief Wednesday among Arabs, who expressed hope that other oppressive regimes would crumble but also disappointment that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) did not put up a better fight against America.</b>
"Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" said Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."
Arabs clustered at TV sets in shop windows, coffee shops, kitchens and offices to watch the astounding pictures of U.S. troops overwhelming an Arab capital for the first time ever. Feeling betrayed and misled, some turned off their sets in disgust when jubilant crowds in Baghdad celebrated the arrival of U.S. troops.
"We discovered that all what the (Iraqi) information minister was saying was all lies," said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo, Egypt. "Now no one believes Al-Jazeera anymore." Mohammed al-Shahhal, a 49-year-old teacher in Tripoli, Lebanon, said the scenes reminded him of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Those who applauded the collapse of Lenin's statue for some Pepsi and hamburgers felt the hunger later on and regretted what they did," al-Shahhal said. However, Tannous Basil, a 47-year-old cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon, said Saddam's regime was a "dictatorship and had to go."
"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," he said. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's." Tarek al-Absi, a Yemeni university professor, was hopeful Saddam's end presaged more democracy in the region.
"This is a message for the Arab regimes, and could be the beginning of transformation in the Arab region," al-Absi said. "Without the honest help of the Western nations, the reforms will not take place in these countries." The overwhelming emotions for many Arabs were disbelief or disillusionment after weeks of hearing Saddam's government pledge a "great victory" or fight to the death against "infidel invaders."
"We Arabs are clever only at talking," Haitham Baghdadi, 45, said bitterly in Damascus, Syria. "Where are the Iraqi weapons? Where are the Iraqi soldiers?" Many resorted to conspiracy theories to explain the rapid collapse.
"There must have been treason," said Ahmed Salem Batmira, an Omani political analyst. "It seems there was some deal. Saddam has put himself ahead of his people," said Yemeni government employee Saad Salem el-Faqih, 50.
Three men having tea and smoking in a coffee shop in Riyadh were unsettled as they watched the TV — even though they said they were against Saddam and felt sorry for the long-suffering Iraqis. "I can't say that I'm happy about what's going on because these are non-Muslim forces that have gone in and I hope they will not stay," said Mohammed al-Sakkaf, a 58-year-old businessman.
Many said they were disturbed by images of U.S. troops lounging in Saddam's palaces or draping the U.S. flag around the head of a Saddam statue. "Liberation is nobler than that," said Walid Abdul-Rahman, one of the three Saudis. "They should not be so provocative."
In Jordan, hotel receptionist Wissam Fakhoury, 28, said he was disappointed in the Baghdad crowds. "I spit on them," he said. "Do those crowds who are saluting the Americans believe that the United States will let them live better?" Fakhoury said. Americans "will loot their oil and control their resources, leaving them nothing."
Bahraini physician Hassan Fakhro, 62, said he was saddened. "Whatever I'm seeing is very painful because although Saddam Hussein was a dictator, he represented some kind of Arab national resistance to the foreign invaders — the Americans and the British," Fakhro said.
After an anti-war march in Khartoum, Sudan, lawyer Ali Al-Sayed said U.S. troops should not misinterpret the relief as an invitation to stay. "Those people under oppression will not have any national feeling, so they will be happy to see someone removing a dictator and liberating them," al-Sayed said. "But the moment they feel free and liberated, they will not tolerate a foreign presence."
His sentiments resonated around a region where Iraq (news - web sites) is far from the only place that lacks democracy.
Abdel Khaleq Abdulla, a political analyst in the United Arab Emirates, said many Arabs, plagued by a sense of powerlessness, will feel depressed at first, despite Saddam's crimes.
"For a while, there will be a sense of resignation, letdown, that this is one more defeat," he said. "But what was defeated primarily in Baghdad is Arab oppression, the one-party system which was unable to defend its country for more than three weeks, and its capital for more than 48 hours. What was defeated in this battle was not the Arabs but the regime of oppression."
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites), an uncomfortable U.S. ally in the war, said the quickest way to achieve stability now would be for U.S. troops to withdraw. "Iraqis must take control over of their country as fast as possible," Mubarak told Egypt's official news agency, MENA.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud, looking upset at a news conference, called for a quick end to Iraq's "occupation." In a rare departure from diplomacy, Saud responded to a question about Arab anger toward the United States with: "I don't want to talk about anger if you don't mind today."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strangely and ironically, there are elements of the things you mentioned even in the U.S. - police fired wooden pellets and stuff at anti-war protesters to break them up, and kept firing as they were dispersing. And there are many who would argue that Bush is being an "abusive commander." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
On the whole though, I agree with what you say :\