In the end, Saddam received some good old-fashioned colonial justice. Brutal, unnecessary and ultimately futile. The country will continue to descend into chaos (despite Bush praising the execution as a positive development for the country. In his dreams.)
The majority of the Iraqis want the Americans to withdraw forces within a year, but this will clearly be ignored by the powers in Washington, Canberra and London. After all, the Iraqis have become almost irrelevant in the equation; it’s now simply about “restoring American prestige.”
The year ends with a nation in turmoil (and Iraqis have mixed feelings about Saddam’s execution, as do Iranians) but perhaps the most perceptive analysis is from Zvi Bar’el:
There still remains the question of the symbolism in Saddam’s execution. The Middle East has countless examples of regimes overthrown on the promise of a better life. In most cases, the new regimes consisted of locals who presented themselves as patriots, rising up to do away with corrupt regimes linked to the West. That is how Saddam presented himself.
The new Iraqi government, on the other hand, is viewed as an American pawn. As such, Saddam may come to be remembered as an authentic Iraqi leader – and thus his account with Bush would be posthumously settled in his favor.
Let’s hope for a 2007 that sees concrete signs of American withdrawal and full acceptance of military, political and social defeat. This won’t happen, of course (just like Vietnam, US Presidents are immune from reason) and further bloodshed is guaranteed.
More importantly, however, is this year’s development that US power in the Middle East has decreased considerably. The country is openly despised in much of the Arab world, and its ability to influence events – still greater than any other nation on earth, mind you – is lessened. This can only be a good thing for a timely re-ordering of the world. Such moves don’t happen overnight, but Iraq will undoubtedly be recognised as a turning point in American power.
There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments”
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html
The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.