Baker, Swamy, Ali: Saddam Capture Has Little Impact on Asian Opposition to U.S. Policy in Iraq. (original) (raw)
Related papers
“Caging Saddam: How Should the US Do It?", The New Paper (Singapore), 14 January 1999
The New Paper, 1999
The "Iraq problem" is, historically speaking, a truly modern problem. By now, war has lost its earlier consequences, and-working backwards-its purpose. In earlier times (in this case, right up to the Second World War) a figure such as Saddam Hussein might not have put the major powers of the world in too much of a quandary. The reason is simple: the concept of war in the past included the consequence that a conquered territory would normally become incorporated into or otherwise made subservient to the conquering state. Wars were a primary way that states expanded or diminished, how some civilisations spread, and others were extinguished. The defeat of Iraq in combat, then, would have meant the subjugation of Iraq to the United States. In the contemporary world, however, battle has no such clear purpose. This explains the confusion surrounding the objectives of the American-British intervention. The intention to contain Mr. Hussein seems futile. Most know this deep down inside, but will not face up to what this futility implies.
Uncertainty Reigns after Saddam's Capture
A commentary article for the Jakarta Post, December 23, 2003: Critics of the U.S. policy in Iraq are concerned with human rights and democracy, which are deteriorating day by day. The question is, how can we explain the champion of democracy and the sole superpower on Earth, which uses ways that are undemocratic in order to democratize another country? In itself, the U.S.' democracy-based justification to invade Iraq is contradiction in terms, for no democracy practice uses force in resolving problems. Democracy only allows fight of the words, not the use of force. - See more at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2003/12/23/uncertainty-reigns-after-saddam039s-capture.html#sthash.hRAmttpr.dpuf
The article captures the foreign policy dilemma that confronted the Indian state on the eve of Iraq invasion in 2003. The article also chronicles the civil society response to the war.
India and the Gulf After Saddam
2004
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
The United States and East Asia after Iraq
Survival, 2007
The US-led invasion and the ongoing insurgency in Iraq have created new challenges for the US strategic position in East Asia. Despite widespread support for a continuing US presence in the region, the Iraq War has damaged US credibility and prestige in East Asia. This damage is likely to increase with the duration and intensity of the US troop commitment in Iraq, the number of Iraqi civilian casualties and the extent to which violence spills outside Iraq's borders. However, a reduction or abrupt withdrawal of US troops might also have negative effects both in Iraq and in East Asia. Resolving this paradox will be a major policy challenge for Washington. Discussions with Asian officials and analysts, a survey of Asian newspapers, and a review of public opinion polls all suggest that events in Iraq have had a negative impact on America's strategic position in East Asia. 1 The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq without United Nations authorisation raised serious concerns in China and Japan, both of which place considerable stock in the legitimacy UN authorisation bestows on international action. The failure of coalition forces to discover active Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes or significant WMD stockpiles cast doubt on the US rationale for the invasion and damaged the credibility of US intelligence agencies. US military forces performed impressively in defeating the Iraqi army during the invasion, but their subsequent inability to maintain order, and the escalating violence in Iraq, highlighted the ability of insurgents to use asymmetrical means such as improvised explosive devices to impose casualties on US forces and to frustrate US efforts to achieve its political objectives. Failure by US civilian leaders to plan adequately for post-invasion stability has led many Asian elites to question
Singapore Middle East Papers A Crime Against Law? The Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair, and Iraq
It took seven years, but finally the Chilcot Inquiry's report into the United Kingdom's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 has been published. It has been worth the wait. Although much has been written on the legality of the British decision to join the US invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003, there is still much to learn from reading Chilcot.
The Truth About The Saddam Hussein Affair
ekurd.net, 2022
The West systematically published false information about Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party, following the red herrings of the Shi'a and Kurdish dissidents in exile. Saddam Hussein's many achievements and aims to better his nation were swept aside. Cynical propaganda, the near constant bombardment of Iraq, sanctions and the Oil For Food Programme were the forerunners to the US-led invasion of Iraq that aided Iranian influence inside the country and across the wider region. The truth about the man they labelled a dictator and tyrant, loved by many hundreds of thousands of Arabs was altogether more complex
Hope and Irony: PTI Supporters' Expectations of Trump's Influence on Imran Khan's Release
the belief among PTI supporters that Donald Trump's presidency could influence Imran Khan's release from prison: The belief among supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) that Donald Trump's recent election victory could lead to the release of Imran Khan from prison reflects a complex interplay of political optimism and misconceptions about international relations. Many PTI supporters perceive Trump as a populist leader similar to Khan, fostering a sense of shared ideology that creates emotional connections. This belief is fueled by the notion that both leaders are anti-establishment figures who appeal to nationalist sentiments and promise to "drain the swamp" in their respective political contexts (Khaliq, 2024). Some PTI leaders have expressed hope that Trump's administration will advocate for Khan's release, citing their past rapport during Trump's presidency. However, skepticism remains among political analysts and rival parties regarding the likelihood of U.S. intervention in Khan's legal matters. Critics argue that such expectations are unrealistic, given the complexities of U.S.-Pakistan relations and the focus on strategic interests rather than individual political cases (Khawaja Asif, 2024). Moreover, this situation has led to ridicule from opposition parties, highlighting contradictions in PTI's narrative. While Khan has previously accused the U.S. of orchestrating his ouster—a claim central to PTI's anti-U.S. rhetoric—supporters now look to Trump for assistance. This irony raises questions about the credibility and consistency of PTI's political messaging (Dawn News, 2024). Ultimately, while some supporters remain hopeful, any resolution regarding Khan's imprisonment is likely to depend more on domestic legal developments than on foreign influence. This extract summarizes the main points and arguments discussed in your original text while providing a coherent narrative flow.