I love this headline at the New York Post. A paper that's not afraid to tell it like it is.

It's a shame for the Iraqi people, but I suspect that most would think that it's still better to be on the front line of the war against Islamofascism than to be under Saddam's thumb.

Them darn vermin!!!

> I suspect that most would think that it's still
> better to be on the front line of the war
> against Islamofascism than to be under Saddam's
> thumb.

Well, according to a recent American Enterprise Institute/Zogby poll, 30% of Iraqis know somebody who was killed by the Americans as opposed to 50% who know somebody who was killed by Saddam's regime.
---
The Administration (and war proponents in general) like to present the available choices as Saddam vs. democracy. I suspect Islamic nationalism remains an attractive option to (at the very least-) a significant part of the electorate, including most Iraqis belonging to well-organized religious/political groups. This is one of numerous important differences between Iraq and post-WW II Germany, where Nazism totally fell from favor as the war ended and no realistic options remained. That is why the American occupying forces faced almost no resistance in 1945-47 [ see http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/ ], whereas any U.S. forces in Iraq undoubtedly will remain targets right until they leave the country for good.

MARCU$

Well, according to a recent American Enterprise Institute/Zogby poll, 30% of Iraqis know somebody who was killed by the Americans as opposed to 50% who know somebody who was killed by Saddam's regime.

That's not very meaningful, since many of the people killed by Americans were in the Army or Republican Guard, or members of the regime. I don't see anything in the data to indicate that they're unhappy that all of those people were killed by the Americans...

"1945-47" A period of two or three years? If we are going to compare apples(tm) to apples(tm) we'll have to wait to see how Iraq looks after we've occupied them for a similar period of time.

It's a bit too early to tell (although the indications of positive movement is pretty easy to see.)

> "1945-47" A period of two or three years? If we
> are going to compare apples(tm) to apples(tm)

No -- I was merely trying to be kind. It seems the total number of U.S. post-conflict combat casualties *already* is much higher than the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in WW II Germany & Japan; Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.

MARCU$

I was merely trying to be kind. It seems the total number of U.S. post-conflict combat casualties *already* is much higher than the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in WW II Germany & Japan; Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.

That's an inappropriate way to look at it. It's only post-conflict in the sense that the regime is out of power. The global war in which we're engaged is far from over.

One of the striking things about most wars that the US has been involved in (including not only both parts of World War II, but also the American Civil War) is that, at the end of the day, there was a formal end to the war, or at least to hostilities (thinking of Korea, there).

For organized militaries, in particular, that is important---certainly some become guerillas, but most don't. This was a major part of Robert E. Lee's contribution to POST-war stability, but also, I would suspect, a major part of why there was (relatively) little resistance in Germany and especially Japan. A legitimate authority had told the people to stop resisting.

One wonders whether, on the one hand, things would be quite so bad if Saddam (or his deputies) had actually surrendered. And one wonders whether Saddam, for the good of his country, ever would have.

> a major part of why there was (relatively)
> little resistance in Germany and especially
> Japan. A legitimate authority had told the
> people to stop resisting.

> One wonders whether, on the one hand, things
> would be quite so bad if Saddam (or his
> deputies) had actually surrendered. And one
> wonders whether Saddam, for the good of his
> country, ever would have.

Good observation! Yes -- that is indeed a major difference. Nazi Germany and Japan were largely monolithic states where the totalitarian government surrendered. The Nazis were totally discredited by the way the war ended and the country capitulated. As for Japan, emperor Hirohito essentially undermined the foundation of their entire ideology by publicly admitting he wasn't a deity.
---
Iraq is indeed different because a) the Baathists didn't surrender, and b) there is a competing ideology (Islamism) which enjoys significant support in some parts of the country.

MARCU$

Marcus,

Which is also why in those regions where Saddam's authority was imposed, rather than welcomed (i.e., in the Kurdish and the Shi'ite areas), there is far less in the way of resistance. Frex, it was almost certainly NOT Shi'a Muslims who blew up their own cleric a few weeks ago.

So, what we are seeing then, rather than a "surprising" amount of resistance, might almost be expected: Resistance in Sunni areas, concentrated in those that were most in support of Saddam Hussein, i.e., the Tikriti areas.

Which is why finding and eliminating Saddam is important for us (on the one hand), and keeping him alive, or at least doubts about his death, is essential for ANYONE opposing the US, including not only Ba'athists, but also, potentially, other Arab regimes, al-Q, and perhaps even the French, Russians, or Germans! (Not that any of those fine states, or the SAudis, would harbor a long-time enemy leader and war criminal....)