Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
A Familiar Future For Iraq
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Today's Economic Crisis in Historical Perspective
Democracy and Elections:
More Unfinished 2008 Election Business: Verifiable Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
A New Approach to Drugs Would Save New York Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
Gabriel Sayegh
Election 2008:
Franken Lawyer: "We Are Going To Win"
Sam Stein
Environment:
Forget the Polar Bears -- The Climate Crisis Is About All of Us
George Monbiot
ForeignPolicy:
What Venezuela's Regional Elections Really Mean
Olivia Burlingame Goumbri
Health and Wellness:
Obama's Health Care Reform Plan Is Based on the Clintons' Failed 1990s Model
Marie Cocco
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration Reform After Bush: Let's Put an End to Punitive Policies
Roberto Lovato
Media and Technology:
Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
Doron Taussig
Movie Mix:
Love Bites: What Sexy Vampires Tell Us About Our Culture
Sarah Seltzer
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
The Hymen Mystique
Carole Roye
Rights and Liberties:
Ban the Cluster Bomb
Brian Cook
Sex and Relationships:
Sex Ed for Seniors
Sue Katz
War on Iraq:
The Dilemma of Foreign Prisoners in Iraq
Ma'ad Fayad
Water:
Corporate Water Abusers Should Not Be Trusted As Stewards of the World's Water
Wenonah Hauter
We have been hearing a lot of divergent scenarios for the outcome of the current war in Iraq. The Bush administration is predicting a new dawn of democracy and freedom. Its detractors are predicting at worst an immediate bloodbath, and at best an American occupation that slides into anarchy and civil war. But there is a third possibility that is never mentioned by either camp: That very, very little will change.
Up until now, Iraq has been ruled by a relatively efficient and modern, though brutal, secular dictatorship. Except for the inconvenient detail that this dictatorship is headed by Saddam Hussein, a man who in recent years has not been a good American client and trading partner, this is exactly the sort of government that Bush, Cheney and company would deal with most easily in the region. So why should they not leave everything exactly as it is, only without Saddam, and with America as partner-in-chief?
At the moment, the American military is carefully leaving Baghdad's power system, water lines and communications intact, and everyone seems to agree that this is because the US will shortly be running the place, and wants it to be in good shape. I suspect that our leaders' attitude toward the government is similar.
It is no wonder the US State Department has been so cool to the Iraqi exiles. Such men have no experience running the country, and in any case they are clearly troublemakers. Much more sensible to keep the Baath Party in power, perhaps with a change of name, but otherwise managing everything more or less as it has been.
This scenario explains some baffling conundrums: Why "regime change" in Iraq, rather than in any of the other vile dictatorships in the region? Easy. Iraq is uniquely equipped with a smooth-running bureaucracy that can switch headmen virtually overnight with minimal protest from anyone.
Why, as a reaction to September 11, is the US attacking the Arab government that is most hated by Osama bin Laden and the other Islamic fundamentalists? Easy. After the American victory, the Iraqi police will be hunting down "terrorists" with new zeal, side by side with the CIA.
Cynical? Of course, but that does not mean it is not good sense, looked at from the point of view of the empire-builders. "The business of America is business," and it is good business practice to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. Iraq is not like Afghanistan, an obstacle course of mountain ranges and fiercely independent warlords; it is a country that, if not too badly damaged in the fighting, can be up and running in no time.
Once the war is over, the Americans will encourage no disruptive social revolutions, no splitting up the country to provide an ethnic Kurdish homeland, and certainly no fully democratic elections that might bring Islamic fundamentalists into power. Bush has always said that he wants "regime change," but also that to him the regime consists of one man.
The message is clear, and very likely attainable: Once Saddam is gone, America will be satisfied with business as usual.
Elijah Wald is the author of "Narcocorrido: A Journey into the Music of Drugs, Guns and Guerillas."
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
Ban the Cluster Bomb Rights and Liberties: More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn't. By Brian Cook, In These Times. December 4, 2008. |
The Dilemma of Foreign Prisoners in Iraq War on Iraq: U.S. troops routinely confiscate the passports of non-Iraqis they arrest, making it impossible to prove they are in the country legally. By Ma'ad Fayad, Asharq Al-Awsat. December 4, 2008. |
Untold Story of Election 2008: The Death of the NRA Rights and Liberties: Among the big losers in November were the NRA and the myth of the once-feared "NRA Voter." Reform of our gun laws is on the way. By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. December 4, 2008. |