What Sort Of A Regime In Iraq?
Retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who has assumed this great duty, said recently that he had no intention of imposing any ‘administrative method’ on Iraq and that these decisions were up to the Iraqi people. These are fine words, but how binding are they? If, for instance, a majority of the Iraqi people favor the establishment of an Islamic order, will the US accept this? The Bush administration, which proclaimed that the US had launched the war in order to ‘save’ the Iraqi people from Saddam and give them freedom and democracy, is now facing such a dilemma. On the one hand, a la Garner, some people say that things should happen just as the Iraqi people want, and on the other, a la US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, some say that an Iranian-type regime cannot be established in Iraq.
When the US was attacking Iraq, it expected the Shiites living in the country’s southern region to welcome its soldiers as ‘saviors.’ However, some of the Shiites saw them instead as ‘invaders’ and nothing yet has changed their minds. This was a great disappointment for Washington. Then came the shock of Karbala: The US had thought that millions of Shiites would feel grateful to America because now that they can visit Karbala freely since Saddam’s overthrow, but instead it found itself faced by protests saying ‘Go home.’ Certain US official linked these reactions with the ‘activities of fundamentalist Shiites and Iran, both seeking to fill the power vacuum.’
The current issue of Newsweek discusses the difference between Iran and Iraq’s Shiites, stressing that the Iranian government doesn’t consider exporting its own regime to Iraq possible, but that perhaps Baghdad still might see an Islamic government. In Newsweek’s words, ‘Would the Americans accept such a development?’
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION
