2005-10-13

Any hope for Iraq?

Paul McGeough from the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't think so.

The debate among analysts is not so much about when the Iraq civil war will start, as much as whether it has started. I have always thought that with 20-plus per cent of the world's oil, Iraqis are destined to have a great and prosperous future - but sadly, I don't see it eventuating this side of a full-blown civil war.

...

Now, Saudi diplomats are traipsing to Washington, warning any who will listen that their volatile neighbour - Iraq - is hurtling towards disintegration. The Riyadh analysis is that the entire region could now be dragged into war because, as the Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, put it last week: "No dynamic is pulling the nation together - all are pulling the country apart."

7 comments:

CraigS said...

Paul McGeough has been predicting civil war in Iraq for about 2 years -

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/war_predicted/

I think he is trying to will it to happen...

One Salient Oversight said...

Last time I looked, McGeough spent a lot of time in Iraq reporting from there. He also won some award for his journalism there too.

Is Tim Blair in Iraq? Does he know something that McGeough doesn't?

Anonymous said...

He may have spent a lot of time in Iraq but that still makes him a reporter who spent a lot of time in Iraq, not an expert on the geo-politics of the entire middle east. Time will prove him right or wrong, what has he been saying the last couple of years? didn't he also report that the Iraqi Present Illawi (sic) had murdered people in cold blood only to find that report completly unsubstantiated.

CraigS said...

My point was that McGeough predicting civil war in Iraq is nothing new.

Guambat Stew said...

http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-de-fox-cotch-da-crusader-rabbit.html

CraigS said...

OSO, I would really be interested to hear your opinions on this -

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Dave Lankshear said...

Craig S, that's a really interesting reference. The part I found especially interesting is "It seems that nothing can satisfy the Muslim Scholars, not even changing the entire document because all they want is to carry out the plans of the neighboring dictators by putting hurdles in the way of democracy."

The agendas of foreign terrorist and political forces seem to be sabotaging the country. Sure America may have executed various parts of the war & peace poorly, I've never rubber stamped everything they did. The American flag on Saddam Hussein's statue made me groan.

Yet as I've been trying to argue with OSO, the whole "blood on their hands" argument fails because of the complexity of the case. I couldn't stand the idea of just leaving Iraq the way it was because I take death seriously!

OSO's argument seems to confuse the reasons for GW2 with what is happening now. We are in a new conflict with external forces, the old war against Saddam's regime is over. This is external pressure on Iraq to become a fundamentalist, totalitarian theocracy.

This is "clash of civilizations" stuff which is older and bigger than a few pastors signing an agreement with GW2 to remove Saddam. Saddam had to go.

Now Iraq needs a new government and to move along. (I still contend that far less have died per year than under Saddam, and that we were killing these people by leaving Saddam in place... whereas now the terrorists are killing the people as Iraq sets up a new government.)

"What happened today is a historic event that will isolate the enemies of Iraq and freedom and will pave the way for a clear future for Iraq after important Sunni groups decided to actively join the political process in Iraq."