Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

Hey! I think I made my point quite well in said thread regardless.

Poophead.

 

lol...

 

Yes, but that doesn’t change my statement. Saddam was essentially secular and he had a Christian minister as well as other non-Sunnis, as I recall. His alliances were political. They tended to be Sunnies but that was incidental. He had no agenda to advance the Sunni denomination in general, or to ally himself with Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia because they are largely Sunni countries. He was interested in advancing his own wealth and power and really not much else beyond that.

 

Externally, maybe. Internally is a different story and hardly incidental to the hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds he killed.

 

I think you neglect to mention the influence the tribal culture in Iraq has, Grizzled. Saddam promoted the interests of his tribe more than the interests of Sunnis, although he wasn't shy about bumping off a relative if they presented him with what he perceived as a problem.



D&D. Tribal Madness!

 

Good point.

 

Does motivation matter?

 

motivation/MO never matters?

 

If we're talking about whether or not Saddam's regime was pluralistic, then his motivation for not being tolerant isn't important to making that determination. If we're talking about something else then it may or may not be so.

 

He was a bloody minded b*stard from the get-go. The Shah also made "tremendous progress in matters of gender equality," but as secular as both were, they were at heart delusional autocrats, ruthless and cruel. It was easier for the two of them to have secular regimes, as both realized early on that a religious-based power/government was difficult to control. Use it at your peril, because as soon as someone sees through you, into your true nature, you're going to have an accident. A fatal one. Successful religious based governments and dictators are just as ruthless and cruel as Saddam, or the Shah, in my opinion. They succeed if they keep their most ardent followers and believers in positions of power, and crush dissent without mercy, making the profession of belief in their cult (to use my own word) a condition for success within their regime. Do that long enough, and a lot of citizens will begin to grasp at your religion. It's always easier for relatively uneducated masses to grab at a religion to support, rather than a secular idea. Lenin understood that, creating a form of religion out of whole cloth.

The things you speak of, rights for women, for example, are more trappings for legitimacy in the eyes of the world than something done for altruistic motives, for these men and their power groups. True, those trappings are good for those who benefit, but would be cast aside in a moment, were it deemed a better move by the group in power. Here in the West, we tend to focus on the trappings, and not the fundamental reality. We being the general public. Our governments know exactly who and what they are dealing with. When it serves our purposes, we will praise or denounce them, regardless of how many Western-style freedoms the dictator allows.

We live in a rotten world dusted here and there with pockets of beauty. We should focus more on enhancing the beauty, and less on propping up someone for political expediency, like the Shah and Saddam in their day. We helped install the Shah, and when he was overthrown, supported Saddam in his conflict with Iran. Both were bastards. Both were bastards we supported. What did that make us at the time? What does that make us now? It would help to have some continuity in our foreign policy. Some integrity. Right now we have neither. We have to hope that will change, as we change our government. In my opinion.



D&D. What a World.

 

GREAT POST!!!!!

 

Interesting but for the sake of debate I will present a few counter arguments.

True in many ways secular dictatorships are similar to theocratic dictatorships and that many secular dictatorships take on the trappings of theocractic dictatorships, like NK, or vice versa. The one difference though is that leaders of a theocractic dictatorship, especially a revolutionary one, are more likely to actually be true believers in their cause than secular ones who are primarily interested in power for the sake of power. In terms of geopolitical politics both dictatorships are problematic but it is more possible to negotiate with a secular dictatorship as their concern is maintaining power and not advancing a religious cause.

Rather than just being trappings though these things might also have to do with that secular regimes generally have a more pragmattic outlook than theocractic regime. Secularist dictators understand that it benefits them to develop to not just cultivate western cultural views to appeal to the West but also that by educating and granting some rights to women can also help build them up economically.

Also a secular dictator is often opposed to traditional conservative power structures as things like religious groups represent a threat to their power. A theocractic dictatorship though represents a traditional conservative power group. So its in the interest of a secular dictator to do things that potentially undermine a traditional groups like provide education and other rights to women.

Integrity, diplomacy and power don't often go together. I agree support for Saddam in the 80's wasn't a good call in the long run but neither was supporting Iran and given the dependence on maintaining the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf it was pretty much a given that the US would tacitly support Saddam. Frankly I firmly believe that if it hadn't been for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and pretty much creating a personal feud with the Bush family Saddam would be one of our closest and staunchest allies in the War on Terror like Musharaf and Mubarak.

 

Sishir, rather than do a point by point rebuttal, since I agree with a lot of what you posted, anyway, I want to point out that I view Saddam as a brutal dictator (of course, we all think that) who's power was based more on the tribal structure of Iraq, and used a secular-based government because it suited his purposes. By taking the religious factor out of the equation as much as possible, through brutal oppression, and getting the "support" of the educated classes by expanding educational and professional opportunities for those able to take advantage of them, he was supporting his tribal family and it's hold on power. The tribal aspect is where we probably differ the most. I think it had a huge component in Saddam's rule. A lot of people tend to overlook it.



D&D. Tribal Madness!

 

Stop making assertions about what you think Iraqis want.

You know what they want? They want to have a nice, peaceful, democratic country.

Now, it was GW's choice to step in or stay out. Stepping ON it and then going back was never an option.

Finish the job. Do what was intended. Honor the agreement. If Iraqis knew this would be the end result, as opposed to a small step along the way, then I can't say they'd agree to this deal.

Unless ofcourse there were other agendas involved and making Iraqis happy was not anywhere near the top of the list. But that's just ridiculous. So let's get on with helping the Iraqis!

 

Btw, Saudi has absolutely no power or control over Iran. If the U.S. decides to let Saudi handle this on their own, Iraq is doomed. Saudi would not be able to protect Iraq without U.S. support. They might try, but it's ludicrous to think they'd succeed.

 

Right now, it seems they would eschew democracy for secure neighborhoods, decent jobs, stable power and clean water.

I can't blame them too much. They're ground zero of another ideological battleground that we unwittingly caused.

 

Hmmmm....the hundreds of thousands of Shiite and Kurd Iraqis killed and their families and neighbors might have felt they were already at ground zero, rather than one caused by the US.