Stardate 20021119.0016

(On Screen): Those hoping to prevent an attack by us on Iraq are getting desperate, and their arguments are becoming more and more pathetic. In the guise of a straight new article, one "Hamza Hendawi", an AP stringer in Cairo, pulls out all the stops and produces farce.

The US shouldn't attack Iraq because bad though Saddam is, he is at least keeping order. If he's deposed, then there would be chaos in Iraq according to "Authorities On Iraq". (You gotta believe them; they're Authorities!)

Authorities on Iraq say more than 30 years of repression, favoritism and divide-and-rule tactics have exacerbated Iraq's ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, meaning Saddam's ouster could usher in political upheaval, and possibly fragmentation, as rival groups jostle for power.

"No one will have any qualms about doing anything, anything at all, after Saddam is gone," said Hassan Abu Taleb, an Arab affairs specialist from Egypt. "For years now, there's been simmering vendettas and old animosities. Some of that anger will be inter-Iraqi, and some will be taken out on any foreign occupier."

There's always a certain amount of chaos in the aftermath of any major war; it's inevitable. There is always a certain amount of score-settling. There's also always a certain degree of anger towards occupiers.

But let's try to keep things in proportion, shall we? There won't be any jostling for power, because Iraq will be ruled for several years by an American military government. And it won't take long before people begin having qualms again, once we've reestablished order and substantially improved conditions for everyone. (Which won't be very hard; it's a hellhole there now.)

Another problem could be that as Shiites, a majority of Iraq's 22 million people, take over rule from the minority Sunnis, next-door Shiite Iran will gain considerable influence in Iraq, or at least in the south where Shiites are concentrated.

The main Shiite opposition group – The Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq – is based in Iran, where it keeps an estimated 5,000-10,000 armed men.

A Shiite-dominated Iraq, say the experts, would extend Iran's sphere of influence all the way to the borders of U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – something the United States prevented by giving support to Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Of course, about five minutes after we begin the attack there's going to be a revolution in Iran, if it hasn't already happened by then, and by the time the revolution is over, the "Islamic Revolution in Iraq" is going to find Iran a rather uncomfortable place to be since the main goal of the revolution is going to be to put every Islamic extremist they can find up against the wall.

"The question for anyone thinking of bringing about a regime change in Iraq is: How do you establish a stable state in the wake of Saddam Hussein without the different factions, most of which has armed militias, basically fighting each other for power?"

That's easy: by 30 years of military occupation. That's what we did in Japan and Germany.

We'll need a substantial base in the middle east for the forseeable future, and putting it in Iraq makes a great deal of sense. American military occupation will be just as benign there as it has been anywhere else, but just as elsewhere there would be the unspoken threat: get too far out of line and the tanks will roll.

This entire article is absurd. It's the latest salvo in the Arab propaganda effort to dissuade the US from attacking. Its thesis is that it would actually be better for the Iraqi people to leave Saddam in charge, which is preposterous.