New Iraq Anti-American?

[RichW]

The administration admitted today that it has underestimated the anti-American feeling among the majority Shiite population. Doh?
This is what Mr Bush Sr. worried about in the Gulf war and one of the reasons for keeping Saddam in power at that time.

While the Arab Shiites in Iraq are culturally different from the non-Arabs in Iran, they nonetheless may have friendlier relations with Teheran. Likewise, Syria will be one of the first to forge diplomatic relations with the new government. As I mentioned before, this could form a coallition of fundamentalist Islamic states which would be very anti-Israeli as well as against American interest. It may also give rise to the dormant (and not-so-dormant) fundamentalism along the Saudi penisula and North Africa. This, in turn, would embolden Palestinian terrorism.

It remains to be seen if the USA will "allow" a majority elected Shiite state to be born. The only really pro-American sentiment in Iraq seems to be among the Kurds, many who believe they will get their own country when it is all said and done.

[Ken_F]

Much of the 65% majority Shiite population wants the establishment of an Islamic state, with a government and its laws based on their interpretations of Koran (thus women in veils, etc).

The Iraqi government's secular rule was the main reason why the Shiites hated Saddam so much in the early days--and why they rebelled time and time again, only to be massacred in response (and then further subjugated to discourage future rebellions). Of course, Saddam gave Shiites many reasons to hate him in later years.

But what makes the U.S. think Shiites will be any more willing to accept a secular (non-religious) government than they would under Saddam?

[gcutler]

And with Iran just next door, talk about additional influence for the Shiites to want a Islamic State.

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by RichW
The administration admitted today that it has underestimated the anti-American feeling among the majority Shiite population. Doh?
This is what Mr Bush Sr. worried about in the Gulf war and one of the reasons for keeping Saddam in power at that time.

You're right. That's why Bush Sr. protected Saddam from a Shiite coup in 91.

While the Arab Shiites in Iraq are culturally different from the non-Arabs in Iran, they nonetheless may have friendlier relations with Teheran. Likewise, Syria will be one of the first to forge diplomatic relations with the new government. As I mentioned before, this could form a coallition of fundamentalist Islamic states which would be very anti-Israeli as well as against American interest.

What exactly is "American interest"? Oil? Regional military power?

It may also give rise to the dormant (and not-so-dormant) fundamentalism along the Saudi penisula and North Africa. This, in turn, would embolden Palestinian terrorism.

It remains to be seen if the USA will "allow" a majority elected Shiite state to be born. The only really pro-American sentiment in Iraq seems to be among the Kurds, many who believe they will get their own country when it is all said and done.

Do you think it's unreasonable for the majority of the country to decide on what type of government they would like to have? Of course not. The U.S. will never allow that to happen. They will be in Iraq long enough to supress any anti-US occupation uprisings, and make sure that a pro-US government is set up. This is what we call "freeing the Iraqis" - and we pay for it with our taxes (not to mention the deaths of our troops).

[DDRio]

What are you saying people? That a Taliban-like regime will rise in Iraq?

[Bogy]

Originally posted by DDRio
What are you saying people? That a Taliban-like regime will rise in Iraq?
If that's what they want, are we going to let them have it? Or will we only allow them the freedom to have the government we think they should have? Iran, on their own, is about to move to another stage. Will we allow Iraq to progress in their own way? Or are we going to play policeman for the next 30 years on a continuing civil war?