>However in Iraq and Afghanistan *you have no state.* You have no everyday
security of property and person, and no functioning economy that provides
for people's needs. This is historically new, the result of our
historically new instant invasions. And this changes the entire guerrilla
equation into something never seen before. Now the resistance doesn't
have to topple a state. All it has to do is keep a state and stable
economy from coming into existence. This is an infinitely easier task and
one that hugely leverages their power. All they have to do to
perpetuate the current insecurity is commit random acts of violence and sabotage.
I'd say the burn and pillage policies indicate that the US state didn't want much left in the way of a functioning society or government, far less an Iraqi state. In theory, they could create another Diem, but they had one for a while in Saddam and here they are. But what is the House of Bush's goal there, a nd is chaos really a problem for them? Was the Iran-Iraq war a problem for them?
This relates to the question, were they trying primarily to sieze for use the productive capacity of Iraq or destroy it? But leaving aside the oil issue : ) it seems quite likely that destroying any potent regional competitors was the goal, not peace or even stability in Iraq, and if that's true we can't really test US (that is, Bushi America) success or failure by measuring domestic tranquility in Iraq. Not to say the Bush conspiracy doesn't have a political problem, certainly, as people get tired of sitting around in Iraq waiting to take a bullet from the people they supposedly just liberated. I see a lot of hope on that front, the seething spouses scene in a recent NYT article really reflects also what's going on there--they wouldn't be acting up that way if their people overseas weren't expressing similar sentiments. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/04/national/04FAMI.html
<snip>
>Perhaps we should update that image, which was more appropriate to the
jungles of Vietnam. For Iraq, the better image would probably be the one
the French came to use to to sum up their experience in Algeria -- a
sandstorm. Blinding, gumming up all works, and unbelievably destructive
for such a seemingly trivial event. People who are trapped in one are
literally eroded to death.
.From the "Battle of Algiers"--European reporter asks captured resistance leader, "Do you really believe the FLN has a chance of defeating the French Army?" --"I believe we have a better chance of defeating the French Army than the French Army has of defeating history."
Jenny Brown