undefined

Here's an part of an off-the-cuff discussion with Noam Chomsky re: the
Iraq invasion. Slightly informative, particularly in regards to possible
"alternative leadership" scenarios:

Thomas Friedman is not my favorite person in the world, but
sometimes what
he says rings true, including this matter. In March-April
1991, when the
US had total control of the region, a Shi'ite uprising
might well have
overthrown Saddam Hussein if George Bush had not authorized
Saddam to crush
it with extreme violence, including helicopters and other
lethal
weapons. Same pretty much with a Kurdish rebellion in the
north, though
other factors intervened. That was all so grotesque that it
was pretty
hard to explain, but commentators rose to the task,
explaining that much as
it pained us, it was necessary for the higher goal of
"stability."
Friedman, then chief diplomatic correspondent of the NY
Times, put it
rather bluntly. He wrote that the "best of all worlds" for
the US would be
an "iron-fisted Iraqi junta" that would rule Iraq the way
Saddam did. The
reasons, which he didn't go into, hold now as well. Any
move towards
democracy in Iraq will give a voice to the Shi'ite majority
and the
significant Kurdish minority. The former are likely to move
the country
towards closer relations with Iran, the last thing the US
wants; or Saudi
Arabia. The latter are likely to press for a degree of
autonomy, which
Turkey will strongly oppose, given its own brutal
repression of its Kurdish
population. So it's somehow necessary to find another
"iron-hand,"
preferably Sunni Generals, recent defectors, the kind the
CIA and State
Department are cultivating now, though some of them pose
problems. One is
General Khazraji, who probably won't be able to come to a
meeting of these
nice folk in Washington in May because he is under
investigation in Denmark
for his apparent role in the gassing of the Kurds in the
Halabja massacre;
he's described as the CIA-State Department favorite.