Robert Fisk seems remarkably ungenerous and pessimistic in his report of the death of Saddam’s sons, which should surely be a cause for general rejoicing. But he thinks it will make things worse. The fear of Saddam’s return will diminish with their death, he believes; but the effect of this will be to increase resistance to the occupation. Until now, the Islamists have feared that Saddam might make a comeback once the Americans leave. If he is dead, they need fear this no longer, and will step up their war.
This is so counter to everything the Americans, and most of the press, believe, that it makes an interesting test case. We’ll see soon enough — say, by Christmas — who is right. If the attacks are still continuing then, and if they survive Saddam’s demise, then Fisk is right, and this is a national/islamist movement. If they stop, the Americans are right, and it’s Saddamite holdovers. But when I think about it, I am inclined to believe that Fisk is right. I do hope he is not.
The link is malformed… and even when it isn’t, it’s a quid a peek. (Does Robert Fisk get any of that quid?)
So what are the options, when a malevolent despot is holding back the Islamicist tide? Isn’t this a reprise of the colonial aspects of the cold war, and isn’t America now operating far less imperially than it did then?
All very confusing. I think I’ll get back to my swivelling nanotubes and molecular level stiction.
R