The Economist is no longer convinced the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile, and reflects on the contradictory effects which make the outcome for the country and region so uncertain.
Despite the “shocking clumsiness” of the occupation and resulting violence and insecurity, it cites polls showing most Iraqis think their lives have improved, mostly because of the greater availability of consumer goods and more freedom of expression. At the same time, it also notes that “the prime beneficiaries of the consumer boom are the moneyed classes, throttled and evicted by the series of Iraqi revolutions that began in 1958.” Although oil and electricity are back to prewar levels, half the population remains unemployed. Neoconservative illusions that the invasion would trigger pro-Western upheavals throughout the region have evaporated, but the Economist dwells at length on what it regards as the first stirrings of democratic reform, and more cautious behaviour by Iran, Libya and Syria. The article’s greatest failing is its blindness to the widespread Iraqi opposition to the occupation, both peaceful and violent, which has been the defining characteristic of its first year. Economist article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
