Now I think we're getting to the meat of the matter. Ultimately, all of what the US is trying to achieve comes down to the views of the ordinary citizens on the street.

You are right in that they don't want another Saddam Hussein. Aside from the Sunnis who did well out of his regime, most would look on another dictator of his ilk with horror.

Now I can't speak for what the average Iraqi is thinking. Ultimately, unless a poster here is living on the streets of Iraq, none of us really can.

Now my assumptions (and I admit, they are assumptions) would be that the number one concerns would of course be day to day living.

(1. Who can deliver me the best, safest, happiest life).

Number two would probably be along the lines of local politics.

(2. Is my proposed leader a Shia or a Sunni?)

Way down the list, would be international politics.

(3. What do I think of the US?)

Now. On the first score - my assumption would be that most Iraqis don't have all that much faith in the ability of the Americans to deliver them vital infrastructure. www.corpwatch.org has done the best job I've seen of highlighting the fundamental failures of the reconstruction.

On the second score, this would tend toward the notion that a true democracy (and that's a subjective term, I'll admit) is impossible for Iraq. Ultimately, unless conflicts such as this can be reduced to verbal rather than violent clashes, this democracy can't work.

On the third score, I would have thought that with so many dead and wounded and such devastation, combined with the fact that the US is fast becoming perceived as anathema to Islam (partially due to US action, partially due to the strong christian element in US politics) that the average person doesn't have much patience for the US.

How religious the average Iraqi is, and how it affects their attitude is another debate, though I can't see how it would be in any way favourable to the US.

An average Iraqi like an average Afghani like an average Kosovar like an average Sudanese like an average anyone round a world in war torn places especially, an international community is particularly being involved in at, is desperately looking for a BETTER LIFE and some living standards meeting promises of delivering the liberation.

However, some local-mafia-style renovation of in-situ economic affairs is much more easy to practically achieve then a real improvement in economy where practical deeds -surely, creating work places as a vital source for locals to meet the ends- is the most.

Either speechifying of theoretical “family businesses”, playing statistics with re-labeling groups of unemployed or words of an imaginary increase of every individual's whealth as de-facto per capita debt (personal and national) is rocketing, while only hypothetical, calculated in inflated local currency, value of shares had upon last decade doubled somewhere for someone,hardly work used to factually feed hungry people.

Hey, Alan Bold, cool comment mate (I only just read it) Just wondering if you could fill me in on my "Background and qualifications"
If you are thinking along the lines of 1) Well educated 2) Good career 3) Good salary 4) Well travelled .... Then you just may have a point. If not, then please allow me to have a go at attempting to define you. Ok, here goes... "Many posters on this site are probably B of A students / grads and generate most of their ideas whilst smoking illegal substances and mutter comments like 'Dude....America is just....bad...man...' "

And Malik - I assume you herald from Pakistan. This is a country that I have been to. The people there are generally quite hospitable, but I never came across this 'bear' that you speak of. I hope you are not referring to a KOALA bear - I think we have rules about that sort of stuff, and anyway it's not even a bear!

TRTL

Just watched a street interview with several Iraqi youth. They all wanted the U.S. army to secure their streets and neighbourhood. One girls complaint was that if the Americans aren't going to secure the neighbourhoods. "Then they should just leave and let the people be slaughtered". That's a direct quote. She spoke in english. They made it clear that they were not against the Americans but, against being unable to move securely around their neibourhoods. One person who spoke told the reporter to not show their faces or use names because "they" would harm them for speaking out. They also referred to a particularly hostile section of Baghdad as going down "there". "There" was where people died regardless of sect. The insurgents were killing everyone. They had a kill zone mapped out near the market and people who left their homes to shop risked being killed for it. No other reason. This particular group are said to be Baathist loyalist. Syrian and Iraqi death squads.

Aqvarivs

I don't doubt this is the case for the average Iraqi... the number one concern for the vast majority of people will always be ensuring the safety of their family.

But consider this - what is the ideal outcome for the US in Iraq?

Lets say a true democracy is instituted and violence is curbed to manageable levels. Lets say that sufficient emergency services can be put in place to handle the rogue elements in society.

The question now becomes - will the majority of Iraqis want a government that has friendly relations with the US?
If so, we have no problem. If not, then we need to ask a second question: will the US put up with a hostile government?

Now... I suppose there is sufficient evidence to hypothesize that if Iraqi society became sufficiently stable, they wouldn't bear any grudge toward the west.
But somehow, I think history tells us otherwise.
Iran is reasonably stable... granted, it is poor and the clerics wield too much power, but Ahmadinejad is popular.

I rather suspect an Iraqi government acting in the genuine interests of the people would seriously consider instituting state ownership of oil supplies.

Which brings us to the second question... would America be okay with that?

Yeah, and will national-liberal Howard's Australia be happy with this:

An "Iraqi government acting in the genuine interests of the people would seriously consider instituting state ownership of oil supplies.

Which brings us to the second question... would America be okay with that?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 29 January 2007 3:32:07 PM "

Eventually this is the FIRST question.