Tweet
" The 'mechanics of the policies' are integral to the perception of any government. Because of the fear Saddam provoked in the Iraqi people, their perception of him will be fundamentally different from the British perception of Tony Blair"
Yes of course, but not to a relevant degree in this argument. My point is that the Iraqis could tolerate Saddam, whereas they cannot tolerate the Americans.
" When it comes down to it, Saddam would not have tolerated a full scale revolt. Whether the Americans helped the Iraqi people in their revolt before is irrelevant. The Iraqi people did not revolt because they knew they would be crushed"
It is entirely relevant because it shows the thinking in the government and civil service circles. Pretty much the same people in power now as then (in terms of thinking).
The fear of being crushed is of course important, but then I doubt the Iraqi army could have coped with a civilian revolt. It was underfunded and underequipped, suffering from years of sanctions etc. The Americans can attest to that, in battle. The republican guard was vastly overestimated. The population on the other hand had guns freely available to them. You see cases on the TV of 10 year old kids with shotguns, and I doubt there was an Iraqi street without half a dozen AK-47's.
The people didnt revolt, because one way or another, partly through fear, and partly because to them, Saddam was the lesser of two evils, they didnt want to.
Yes of course, but not to a relevant degree in this argument. My point is that the Iraqis could tolerate Saddam, whereas they cannot tolerate the Americans.
" When it comes down to it, Saddam would not have tolerated a full scale revolt. Whether the Americans helped the Iraqi people in their revolt before is irrelevant. The Iraqi people did not revolt because they knew they would be crushed"
It is entirely relevant because it shows the thinking in the government and civil service circles. Pretty much the same people in power now as then (in terms of thinking).
The fear of being crushed is of course important, but then I doubt the Iraqi army could have coped with a civilian revolt. It was underfunded and underequipped, suffering from years of sanctions etc. The Americans can attest to that, in battle. The republican guard was vastly overestimated. The population on the other hand had guns freely available to them. You see cases on the TV of 10 year old kids with shotguns, and I doubt there was an Iraqi street without half a dozen AK-47's.
The people didnt revolt, because one way or another, partly through fear, and partly because to them, Saddam was the lesser of two evils, they didnt want to.
.
Comment