[Iraq] A really cynical thought...

[mrph]

In recent days, US intelligence has warned that Al-Qaida may attack US forces in a post-Saddam Iraq.

They're probably right about this. But a less palatable idea has also crept into my head.

When Baghdad falls, the US needs to win the propaganda war. They need happy liberated Iraqis, adoring crowds who are grateful for their freedom.

And that perception needs to last. But if the US troops are seen locally as unwanted occupiers, you can bet that some Iraqis will start a "resistance" movement, trying to kick them out by force (or more probably, several resistance movements, in keeping with Iraq's splintered factions). The struggle itself may be doomed, but politically... Bush really doesn't need that kind of publicity (can't you just see the papers asking "why are the 'grateful' people we 'rescued' viewing us as an evil occupying force?").

But if the people shooting and being shot by US troops are Al-Qaeda, well, that's different. They're bad guys, after all. No need for soulsearching, no need to worry if they're evidence that we've done the wrong thing.

And definitely not related to the liberated Iraqis, who are completely happy. Not even if some of the evil "Al-Qaeda agents" were born and raised in Iraq, I'd imagine.

Comments

Oh my

[gamera-spinning.livejournal.com]

That is a really cynical thought, but an important one. Creeps me out thinking about how easily I could see that happening.

Re: Oh my

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I'm a very cynical creature - and anyway, if I was in GWB's position, I'd be looking at postwar spin already, too.

Anyway, as commented to mouseboks, any organisation that doesn't have an english speaking representative is all to easily painted as whatever the government wants them to be...

To be fair, if there is an armed uprising, I'd expect Al-Qaida to be there within days, handing out recruitment forms and trying to get a foot in the door so they can arrange weapon loans and shared resources.

Which would just make the "all armed resistance is Al-Qaida" line even easier to sell, of course.

Hi, btw! I noticed you'd friended me, but didn't manage to get organised enough to say anthing about it. Should I know you from somewhere outside LJ, btw? If so, I'm afraid I've forgotten or failed to recognise you... sorry!

Re: Oh my

[juudes.livejournal.com]

if I was in GWB's position, I'd be looking at postwar spin already

And indeed, the next war (with North Korea, by the sounds of it.)

[mouseboks.livejournal.com]

Interesting point, but there's not much point being a resistance/terrorist group if no-one knows it's you performing the acts of resistance/terror. Whether this sort of ruse would succeed would depend on the ability of the Americans to surpress statements by the groups involved (although if their only concern is the 'Average American Voter' tm., then that might well not be particularly hard to achieve).

Tangent time

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Which brings us back to my rule #1 for any country or organisation that's liable to clash with the USA (or UK, for that matter):

Make damn sure that your representatives speak flawless English, know how to use the Western media (a knack for soundbites is very handy) and have sharp wits and a certain amount of personal charisma. If they can pass for a generic Westerner (in terms of clothing and style, rather than belonging to any particular ethnicity - just to diminish the "they're not like us" effect), so much the better.

Look how much damage has been done to the US and UK pro-war campaign by people pointing out inconsistancies and catching politicians on the spot. If Saddam was represented by a suitably sharp and savvy operator, asking some of the questions that political commentators have raised - and asking them at press conferences on prime time TV, with just the right mix of sorrow, patriotism and logic, they really could've skewered Tony & George.

[Inconsistency of the day - one of the conditions of the latest US/UK ultimatum is that Saddam must "surrend mobile biological warfare production units". Y'know, I'm sure I heard Hans Blix tell the UN that they were just US speculation, and that there was no actual evidence that they exist, and some circumstantial evidence that they don't. Get out of that paradox, Iraq... I quite like the "quick, build some mobile bio labs so that we've got some to surrender!" solution, myself]

[giolla.livejournal.com]

can't you just see the papers asking "why are the 'grateful' people we 'rescued' viewing us as an evil occupying force?"
They could always claim they thought they were in Hawaii

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

TBH you only have to look at any other conflict to see that the likeliness of something like that happening is pretty high.
Look at the Japanese/Americans who were relocated during the Pacific War despite being US citizens. They were treated like dogs, and probably didn't even receive much in the way of an apology. They were forced out of their homes which they had worked hard for, forced to live in conditions you wouldn't ask a dog to live in, and when it was over, they were given $50 and told to be on their way, they had to start from scratch. (what I do find ironic, and slightly OT, was when the US military allowed a Jap/US citizen military unit to be formed, they won more medals than any other unit in the entire army, which was quite amusing :))
And that was all because they thought they may be a threat from the inside.
Vietnam, and the torture and executions of 'suspected' Viet Cong. I have books filled with images of vietnamese being lined up and murdered because they had suspected ties with the VC (ok, many probably were, but many weren't)

so going on the US military past, I wouldn't put it past them to pull something like this.
I am pretty cynical about htis whole thing anways, but I can see something like this actually happening...or maybe even like the camp X-ray chaps. People just disappear, and nothing much can be done.
Very scary thought