Monday, April 30, 2007

The Occupation of Iraq: Hitchens on Allawi

Most Americans assume that the sectarian violence embroiling Iraq only happened after Saddam was deposed. In fact it has been going on for centuries. Christopher Hitchens is a liberal writer for “Slate” who “gets” it. His perceptive observations on Iraq have been based on extensive knowledge of the culture of the area. I ran across his book review of Ali Allawi's memoir "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace".

Allawi is a member of Iraq’s National Assembly and held high posts in the post-war government.

Slate April 23, 2007 (Excerpt)

“When the Coalition arrived in Baghdad on 9 April, 2003, it found a fractured and brutalized society, presided over by a fearful, heavily armed minority. The post-9/11 jihadi culture that was subsequently to plague Iraq was just beginning to take root. The institutions of the state were moribund; the state exhausted. The ideology that had held Ba'athist rule together had decayed beyond repair.

I pause to make two points. First, it's a pleasure to see someone use the word brutalized correctly, to mean not so much the experience of being maltreated as the familiarity with being brutal. Second, if what Allawi says is true, then Iraq was headed straight for implosion and failure, both as a state and a society, well before 2003. Not only this, but its Sunni ruling elite was flirting increasingly with a Salafist ideology. In such circumstances—as many Iraqi dissidents argued even at the time—the United States had to face the alarming fact that a ruined Iraq was in its future whether it intervened or not.

How had a country that was bursting with oil wealth and development in the 1970s become a sweltering, violent basket case? Because the historic compromise between Sunni and Shiite, uneasy as it was, had been ripped apart by dictatorship and overseas aggression. As Allawi phrases it:

The state removed the elements that kept a vigorous Shi'a identity alive in parallel to a Sunni-dominated state. Nationalizations, emigration and expulsions destroyed the Shi'a mercantilist class; the state monopoly on education, publishing and the media removed the cultural underpinnings of Shi'a life. … When the state embarked on the mass killings after the 1991 uprisings, Iraq became hopelessly compromised in the minds of most Shi'a.

And this is to say nothing of the Kurds: the one-fifth of Iraqi society who, as Allawi points out, had already left the Iraqi state by the time the coalition arrived. Without needing or wishing to soften any critique of post-invasion planning, I would propose that this analysis has a highly unsettling implication.

Hell was coming to Iraq no matter what.

This point is undergirded by another one, which is that hell was already making considerable strides in Iraq in the decade before 2003. Again, Allawi's cool analysis and careful evidence darkens this already black picture. All the crucial indices, from illiteracy to unemployment to the emigration of talent and skill, were rapidly heading south. Perhaps most ominously, the reaction of Saddam Hussein was to ratchet up religious and theocratic rhetoric and policy, broadcasting for jihad 'round the clock, engaging in a massive mosque-building program, and launching sporadic "morals" campaigns. Again, U.S. policy could hardly be indifferent to this distress and misery and demagogy, if only because the whole context was shaped by two largely American decisions. The first was to allow Saddam to remain in power after 1991 and to watch while he massacred the Shiites and Kurds, an action that Allawi rightly describes as "unforgivable." The second was to impose sanctions, which, unduly prolonged, did far more damage to an already distraught society than they did to the ruthless and corrupt regime.

I think I could pass an examination in the failures of our post-2003 policy and even add a few observations from experience. But I have never been able to overcome the feeling that Iraq was our ward and responsibility one way or another, and that canceling or postponing an intervention would only have meant having to act later on, in conditions even more awful and dangerous than the ones with which we have become familiar. Whether Ali Allawi now agrees with this I could not say, but his excellent and lucid book makes it a case that is extremely difficult to dispute.”

Christopher Hitchens is one of many prominent liberals (like Alan Dershowitz) whose political leanings have never blinded them to the dangers facing the civilized world from Islamic jihad and the key role that Iraq plays in defeating this plague.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 6:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A computer registry is a Windows specific aspect of a computer. It contains information on just about everything a computer does. And cleaning it can certainly be a long and tedious project. Below are some things to consider for how to clean up computer registry with registry cleaner.

The first thing anyone should know about cleaning a registry is to not do it manually. Consider the fact that everything your computer does is on there, from web browsing to installed programs. So if a file gets deleted or replaced without knowing what it does, it could seriously damage the computer.

The alternative option is to use a registry cleaning program. But, before anything is done to the registry, a backup needs to be made (that way, if something is broken, it can be restored). Usually, third-party programs have a way of doing it themselves. For the ones that don't, there's a manual way to do it, using the Windows Registry Editor.

When using a third-party program, it's important to know which ones won't accidentally break the computer. Some programs can delete key registry items and cause more problems than they solve. As such, it's best to check either ZDNet, CNET, PC world, or PC magazine for the latest on helpful (and harmful) programs to use.

By cleaning up the registry, old (and even unused) registry items are removed, giving a little more space and a lot more processing power. Old registries, such as the ones from uninstalled files, usually connect to locations that don't exist or that can't be found, slowing down the computer. By removing them, the computer can focus on the task at hand.

[url=]teen ass[/url]


Post a Comment

<< Home