I've spent about four years in Iraq, pre and post GW II as a civvy. I've previously served in uniform so I think I can get a reasonable take on what's happening from both sides.
Firstly, this is the first reasonable thread I've read concerning this subject, unlike R&N, here there at least seems to be an effort to understand the issue rather than flaming it.
This is my experience:
The Iraqi people in the main are quite erudite and by regional standards well educated. In fact, prior to GW I, their education system was probably better in terms of quality and access than many "developed" counties. Albeit, certain subjects were slanted to suit the regime.
They are also deeply religious. In my opinion, Islam is a very difficult religion to understand clearly when you come from a Christian background. It may appear similar, but the nuances are complex. Seemingly minor issues (dog in a house?) can have major implications.
Muslims defer to God (Allah) as the ultimate authority. As a previous poster mentioned, the emphasis on individual moral authority is very different to Christianity. The Quran contains guidelines on many issues other than religion, for example, it contains guidelines for business transactions (interest is not to be charged on a loan). As with most religions, its the interpretation that divides the fundamentalists from the moderates. Unfortunately, the fundamentalists get the TV airtime and being branded "terrorists" coupled with a often condecending attitude because of their simple lifestyle, leads to an unfair generalisation.
Due to the above, I personally don't think western style democracy will lead to a stable environment in Iraq, or any other ME country. Dictator or Monarchy - take your pick. I haven't even gone into the aspects of tribalism that also supports this view.
Moving on, I agree with the previous poster (WWW?) that oil alone is not the motivation behind GW II, the Saudi theory is interesting. My opinion is that it was a personal quest on the part of GWB. I know that is sounds too simplistic to be true but where is the evidence to the contrary? TB got on board to try and exert some influence then got sucked in past the point of no return.
It is important to seperate the political issue of invading Iraq and its motives from the troops on the ground. These guys are just doing their job. I had dealing with both the Brits and the Yanks (I'm neither BTW) while I was there. The Brits were consummate professionals, I've dealt with many military forces in many countries and have to say that they are peerless - bar none. The Yanks seemed to make decisions far higher up the CoC, which creates delays, but, not complaining about my experience - USMC seem a little more "switched on"
The recent pictures showing ill treatment of prisoners are saddening. Any professional soldier would be disgusted. I fear these incidents will play into the hands of the fundamentalists when it comes to swaying middle ground Iraqi opinion.
On a lighter note (slightly) I heard a story there a few years ago that there was a guy in Baghdad tending to the graves of British military war dead for years with no salary. Apparentley it was being paid into an offshore bank a/c and he couldn't access it - anyone got info on this one?
Sorry for the length of this post but you have to unload somewhere.
