The Iraq War
For the older messages, look here.
This page contains the comments about the War with Iraq. To add your own comments, write to discussion@norfolknet.com.
4/13 7:06pm AR: Interesting quotes from Blix. If the U.S. insists on controlling the inspections, and denies a role to the UN inspection team, one has to suspect that the goal is to be sure and find some WMD's, whether they are there or not. The Bush administration knows that any "find" they make will have no credibility. If they truly believed that WMD's were present, they would invite the UN inspectors back, so that no one can accuse them of fabricating evidence. But it looks like that's not what they're going to do. - WJB
4/12 8:44pm Who's to fault for the chaos now raging in Baghdad? But Iraqis had a ready culprit: they blame America for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein before it was prepared to deliver order to Baghdad.Strong words, but they seem to have a point. The only government facilities the marines are guarding are a power generating station and the ministry of oil. That 'O' word again. Go figure."It's my country, and I hate Saddam," he said. "But why are they allowing robbing, why are they allowing people to set fire to buildings? Saddam was right to put those kinds of people in prison.
"I don't like Saddam, I hate him; but when I see American soldiers I want to spit on them." (Guar)
- AR
4/12 12:32am The "fog of war" is a handy excuse for the dissemination of some egregiously tall tales. The Guardian keeps a list of claims, corrections, and retractions about major events of the war. Umm Qasr was "taken" at least nine times before it was...taken. An uprising in Basra evaporated without trace. Chemical Ali may or may not have been found dead.It seems to be kept up-to-date, so it might bear visiting periodically.- AR
4/12 12:31am Eyewitness accounts differ greatly from Mr. Rumsfeld's version of the looting in Baghdad. The British and American administrations are trying to play down the chaos, claiming that looting is justified, that it only targets regime property, that it's no big deal. The latest uproar is about a story by Andrew Gilligan of the BBC that reports ``Baghdadis are experiencing their "first days of freedom in more fear than they have ever known before."'' Organized looters, armed with guns, have started fighting turf wars. Government oppression and brutality have been stopped, yes, but never before had the average Iraqi had to fear stepping out their front door. Defending himself on BBC's the World at One, Gilligan said: "The reality is half the shopping district is now being looted. Downing Street may be saying it's only regime targets that are being attacked. I'm afraid it isn't."- ARIn Washington, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that television images of isolated acts of looting and violence were being played over and over again for sensational effect. (Guar)
4/11 10:40pm Hadn't seen it in the AP articles yet, but Hans Blix spoke out about the inspections and the war yesterday, offering an uncharacteristically blunt assessment. In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign.- ARMr Blix told the Spanish daily El Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections." (Guar 1)
The 74-year Swedish diplomat made clear that he believes he was misled by President Bush. (Guar 2)
4/11 10:40pm Saddam Hussein curiously enough began his career as a would-be CIA assassin. UPI has a fascinating investigative report on the origins of Hussein's ties to our government. [Hussein's] first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.- ARIn the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party
In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. [...] [T]he the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down. Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.
4/11 10:23pm WJB, since "nuclear weapons continue their inevitable proliferation" I can only be thankful that a few hundred votes in Florida did not spell doom for millions of Americans. - PFD
4/11 9:04pm Well, that didn't take long. Yesterday, North Korea stated that it has learned from the unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that a strong military deterrent is necessary, an obvious reference to their ongoing nuclear weapons program. It may have been possible at one time to reach a deal with North Korea to get them to give up their nuclear weapons, but our foolish military campaign against a defenseless third world country has probably eliminated that possibility. Now, people living in San Francisco or Los Angeles can sleep a little more uneasily knowing that North Korea probably has the ability to launch a nuclear attack against those cities tomorrow if it should so choose. Let's hope their paranoia doesn't lead them to think a first strike has merit. Yesterday, India also cited the American doctrine of pre-emption in suggesting that Pakistan may be deserving of unilateral attack. The specter of the nuclear nightmare rises there again as well. Those of you who like to argue whether the Iraq war was "moral" or not can continue your debate, but to me the profoundly negative impact of the war on the security of America is far more meaningful. As nuclear weapons continue their inevitable proliferation, the Bush administrations' policy of seeking to maximize the number of our sworn enemies around the world makes us less safe by the minute. We can only hope that a few hundred votes in Florida will not ultimately spell doom for millions of Americans. - WJB
4/11 7:53pm Your friendly neighborhood philosophy geek dropping in for a few words on "cynicism." The original Cynics were a pretty minor school of thought by Socrates' student Antisthenes around 400 B.C.. It was in the only educational institution open to those of half-Athenian descent -- a place called Cynosarges. The Cynics believed that living a virtuous life -- living according to nature -- is necessary and sufficient for attaining happiness. They looked down on conventional values, such as wealth and social status, which they thought were opposed to this vituous life. Frankly, they weren't much of a philosophical school; it is better described as a stance toward conventional society. The Cynics "dressed down" big time (they favored coarse cloaks and holey -- not holy -- garments) and rejected the growing emphasis on superficial attainments like wealth, social status, and beauty. They were essentially the first punk rockers and grunge slackers. Good old Diogenes with his lamp was a famous Cynic. So how did "cynical" get to be such a multi-purpose put-down and an epithet to use for "a faultfinding captious critic who believes that that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest?" Beats me. Webster's says [in] the 16th century. And since when is anyone who questions motivations and root causes automatically called a cynic? I'm guessing this usage has been growing since Watergate and Americans started to question the information they receive from government and other "experts" more than ever before. It's all about where you draw the line. When does a thoughtful person who wants detailed information become a "cynic" in the eyes of others? It depends on who is doing the looking. -DAF
4/11 7:50pm Analyzing the minutiae of tribal conflicts misses the larger point that the forcible incorporation of different cultures under a single ruling body causes much of said oppression, resentment, and warfare. No, the common theme in my postings is that it's not our role to decide what type of self-governanace is best for them, and that it's arrogant and condescending to think so. In my post, I referred to former colonies in Africa; the demographics of most third-world countries are artifacts of European colonialism, and do not reflect like peoples with similar attitudes and aspirations. "Religion/tribal factions" are but the most obvious manifestations of identity and culture, and a shared culture is the only meaningful foundation on which to base a nation. A shared economic interest, like the European Union or what you're proposing in Iraq, is a poor substitute, and easily degenerates to a system where some groups are "more equal" than others. Education is a wonderful thing, and I would love to be able to make a difference, but it's not a panacea; look at the level of voter awareness and participation in this country. - AR
4/11 2:53pm AR - I was under the impression that most of today's Socialist societies were democracies. As for a monarchy, I have a difficult time believing someone claiming a divine right to the throne is going to be well received by a plurality of factions within Iraq. When I see the word "tribal" and "Africa" in the same sentence I can't help but think Tutsis and Hutus. A common theme in your postings is the desirability of the Iraqis to return to operate as their independent factions. To expand on your point about populations needing to be sophisticated, a return to tribal factions that have been divided by religious and ethnic differences is not going to benefit the population as a whole. They have an opportunity to transform their abundant resources into a higher standard of living for all, but making religion/tribal factions the focus of delineation of people is a return to the Third World. The intermingling of religion and government is the root of many of the problems in the Middle East. If you're willing to deem these folks to be unsophisticated in the ways of the modern world, then you shouldn't be hesitant to educate them and show them a better way of life. - EW
4/11 2:05pm EW: What good governments are not democracies? There are quite a few well-regarded monarchies in Europe, as well as some socialist systems; they all provide all the amenities and serve their public well. Do not confuse the name of the governing system with the ability and willingness of those in control to live by the declared rules. The exact same constitution and laws can result in terrific government or atrocious tyranny. The old Soviet constitution provided more civil liberties than the Constitution, and yet did not result in freedom. A central power, imposed before the population is sophisticated enough to keep it in check, has rarely resulted in good government. A cynic is an idealist confronted by reality. Call me an idealist, but good government doesn't presume to know what's best, but lets people decide and work it out themselves. Given the forms of "democracy" that seem to flourish in third-world former colonies - just look at Africa - it may well be that for the Iraqis, another century or two of tribal partriarchy would be good government. Familiar, stable, responsive, representative, and, not least - their own. - AR
4/11 2:02pm To EW Re: shortage of cynics: Turkey? Our friend, our ally, our great bulwark against the eastern hordes of terrorists, our shining example of Middle-Eastern democracy? Harm our friends the Kurds? No, that couldn't be! That would be disloyal to the alliance! Duplicitous! Treacherous, underhanded, back-stabbing, two-faced... I can't believe it! Why, just contemplating such villainous intentions on the part of our democratic allies would be just too cynical! Next you'll be saying that the alliance itself is temporary, just conveniently coinciding self-interest and financial incentives, and that back-stabbing is not unusual in politics. No, no, stop! That's too much cynicism! Laa tee dahh... I'm not listening... Laa dahh dee... - AR
4/11 12:24pm AR, spot on as usual. EW -- you mention Bush the Elder's lack of support for the post-war uprisings of the Kurds and Shi'a as a reaction to the UN's blocking the action ("stand up to the UN"). According to everything I have heard and read, this simply not the case. Bush the Elder miscalculated. His administration (and US intelligence experts) thought that top military personnel, after Saddam's humiliating defeat in Kuwait, would soon remove him. To encourage any such efforts, President Bush publicly urged Iraqis to seize the initiative right here in MA at the Raytheon Patriot missile plant on 2/15/1991. "There's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands -- to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." See the CNN article. The Kurds in Iraq's northern mountains and Shi'a in the south simultaneously launched uprisings just days after the Gulf War's end. But these spontaneous popular rebellions caught the Bush Administration by surprise -- in part because the groups involved did not represent the anticipated agents of change and in part because they expected it to take a while. U.S. officials had assumed that the rebellion would occur from the military and it would be the dominant Sunni Muslims, not the essentially voiceless, subjugated Kurds and Shi'a. The U.S.-led coalition was caught off-guard and refused to take meaningful steps to aid the uprisings. The Bush administration was afraid that the revolts, if successful, would lead to the dismemberment of Iraq on ethnic lines, which might destabilize the region and pose a danger even greater than the ongoing rule of Saddam Hussein. And, Powell and Sec. of State James Baker said they did want US troops getting mired in a civil war. The UN had nothing to do with this betrayal. -DAF
4/11 10:57am AR - Like I said, no shortage of cynics. I don't deny that much remains to be done. The war will be easy relative to getting Iraq back on its feet. As far as what the new government would and would not be allowed to do, undoubtedly we would have tremendous influence on how it operates in the beginning. We should not sanction any government action that provides aid to terrorists, period. As far as allowing them to break apart into three republics, that would leave the Kurds at the mercy of the Turks. We let one element of the population out to dry following the Gulf War, when Bush Senior didn't have the backbone to stand up to the UN - we need to learn from those mistakes. The transformation to self-determination will not happen overnight. In the meantime, we shouldn't apologize for constructing a government that we can use to help stabilize the Middle East. You mention that democracy (I'm using the term broadly to include democratic republic) isn't the only form of good government. What are some of the alternatives you had in mind? - EW
4/11 10:55am WD: Oh, I completely agree that their lives will be better than under Hussein, but that wasn't my point. Improving their lot does not entitle us to curtail their aspirations, their unalienable right to determine their own fate. It's an old argument, really. For example, one thing's been in the news for weeks: the US administration would block the Kurds' dream of a homeland, presumably even forcibly - guised in in diplomatic language, it reads "We do not want to see it breaking up into two or three different pieces, and we will only support a government in Iraq that is likewise committed to that proposition," Powell said. (AP)- AR
4/10 10:19pm AR - Whatever form of government they end up with will be light years ahead of what they're being liberated from - 30 years of suppression, torture and hording of their monetary resources. During the interim I would certainly hope that we help re-establish some stability and infrastructure to the entire country, aid their diverse groups to unite for the common good and help establish a path to a representative government. They will have the resources and opportunity to turn that country into one that is more responsible towards it's citizenry but for now we can lead that horse to waters of freedom but it'll be up to them to drink it - WD
4/10 1:17pm Re: The final objective of this war is not to remove Saddam, rather it is to establish a free society that places democracy above all else A charming view, but possibly somewhat optimistic. Will the Iraqis really have the freedom to choose a path in direct conflict with US aims in the region? Would they be free to split into two or three independent countries? Would they be allowed to continue to send aid to the Palestinians in the occupied territories? Could they form allegiances with governments such as Iran and Syria that are out of favor with the US? Would they be allowed choose to ignore external meddling and remain loyal to their heritage of clan and family-based political structures? Freedom is more than what a conquering power describes, and democracy is not the only form of good government. We've all heard the speeches, but much still remains to be seen. - AR
4/10 12:04pm TEM - The final objective of this war is not to remove Saddam, rather it is to establish a free society that places democracy above all else which currently reigns in the Middle East (tyrants or rule by religion). There is not a shortage of cynics out there who refuse to believe that this can be done based on past history and the disparate groups within Iraq that have long histories of hatred towards one another. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has the potential for a vibrant economy due to oil and relatively high education levels. If we are successful in making Iraq a model society within the Middle East, providing true economic opportunity, then it would provide undeniable challenges to the other Arab societies. Example - Saudi Arabia where you have the fabulously wealthy House of Saud and the poor underclass which is under the spell of radical religious spewing clerics who tell them that they are poor because of infidel-ruled societies such as ours. If the majority underclass in the Middle East sees economic opportunity in a free, secular society, all will benefit including us. To answer your question in an admittedly oversimplified fashion, no, invading the Middle East has not endeared us to Arab countries, especially those individuals who are in power (interesting though we're not hearing much anti-American sentiment from the man in the street in Iran where there is approaching a critical mass looking to overthrow those in power and establish a more just society). If we successfully execute the establishment of a new, free society in Iraq, however, the majority in the Middle East will look to us as the blueprint for a free society with a much higher standard of living. - EW
4/10 11:49am PC, might you answer the questions I've put to you? Your popping in every now for the off one-liner is not particularly enlightening or helpful. Sort of childish, in my humble opinion. Other neighbors, apologies in advance for the long post. I've been reading some antiwar folks who are comparing the Bush administration's neoconservative plans for the Middle East as quite similar to the Jacobins of late 18th century France and their Reign of Terror. The similarity is intriguing -- an idealism gone awry. I suppose there are many other examples throughout history of the dangers of trying to create "democratic" environments by force -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. etc. etc.. I may be being naive, but I don't think Bush and the Neocons are doing quite the same thing that the Jacobins and others did. (Incidentally, I think Bush and the Neocons is a great name for a rock band.) I suppose if we start invading other countries in the region, I'll be proved wrong. I've doing a lot of reading lately about the post-Reconstruction period here in the US when Jim Crowism was formed. I see some more believable parallels there. Slavery was, among other things, the structure created to support a "white" hegemony over "blacks" through violent force -- whippings, rapes, and other tortures. In this way, the Southern "whites" were not unlike Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, the Jacobins, and so on. After Emancipation, the failed Reconstruction, and the creation of Jim Crow, the whites continued the hegemony over the ex-slaves and their descendents. Whites used violent force less frequently to enforce their hegemony during the Jim Crow era, although when they did, it was more deadly than during slavery, (when blacks were property to be kept alive for work). They generally used the threat of force rather than actual force ( there were fewer than 4,000 lynching of blacks between 1882 and 1968). And so, it was harder to fight the white hegemony. This is the kind of structure I think Bush and neocons have in mind for the Middle East. They need not occupy the countries as colonialist powers to enforce their hegemony. The threat of force is enough. From time to time there will be "lynchings," just to make sure that those who are being subjugated are aware of the threat. What do you all think? Am I way off? - DAF
[I don't see the need for the kind of direct force you describe. Imagine a monarch a la Saudi, or a president a la Mubarak or Arafat, who maintain an iron grip on the country. Now imagine said ruler deeply beholden and supported by the US, both financially and militarily. He'll be popularly elected and re-elected, every time, with 99% of the voters voting for him. *He* will apply the force needed to prevent the implementation of any will of the people (who would not voluntarily do America's bidding). Voila! democracy in our time, no more torture (not much, anyway), a pro-US, pro-Israel, anti-terrorist regime, permanent military bases in the Middle East, and new oil leases to US companies. - Wm.]
4/10 11:22am To EW: Just for the record and to see if I understand you correctly: Are you stating that the invasion, bombing, destruction, occupation, and regime collapse of Iraq orchestrated primarily by the US will result in a "stem" of anti-western sentiment? I could be wrong, but I find this difficult to believe. Perhaps you can enlighten us just how these events (no matter what one's position is on this war) will result in a decrease rather than an increase in such sentiment, especially toward the United States. - TEM
4/10 10:09am TMB, the Bush W. quotes on the page you mentioned are hilarous! Thanks for the chuckle - - Wm.
4/10 10:00am The marines toppling the statue of Saddam, our boys in blue distributing aid to the populace... made-for-media extravaganza shots. Certainly much more flashy than a picture of hundreds of Iraqis tugging at the thick rope and failing to budge it. As to aid, aid is not what is needed, photogenic as that scene may be. "We thought when they entered the city, they would prepare an administration to take control," said Dr. Janan Peter al-Sabah, the hospital's chief of surgery.Ironically, in spite of British insistence that they're an army, not a police force, they are nevertheless obligated to uphold order:"We don't need food or water. What we lack is safety and protection." (AP 1)
Occupying military forces "have responsibility under international humanitarian law to maintain a secure environment for the civilian population" (AP 2)- AR
4/10 9:59am Democracy in Britain is not what we're used to, but it may be very much like Bush's vision of a country run under Homeland Security martial law. This Guardian story recounts the experience of someone who tried to visit a peace sit-in at a US military base. It would make amusingly entertaining reading, if the blatant harassment and illegal conduct by the police weren't so chilling. - AR
4/9 5:39pm Wm - Then it looks like were off to Syria (not much oil there though) oh well we could use a free port on the Mediterranean. Turkey's rent is getting a little high and not dependable either. - PC
[6:56pm You may be right about Syria - see this AP story - Wm.]
4/9 5:38pm I'm new to this discussion so please forgive if I repeat material covered earlier. Yes, we haven't found any confirmed WMD's (although material is currently being tested). However in light of the discovery of gas masks, antidotes, chemical suits and hollow tip armaments, I find it naive to think that Hussein doesn't have chemical and/or bio weapons. The reason why we fought this war was because it was in America's best interests. Hussein clearly had egregiously violated the rules he was supposed to operate under the UN. The fact that we had chosen not to pursue it in the past, shouldn't provide an excuse for inaction now. The freeing of the Iraqi people was not the primary purpose of this war, but to dismiss it as a "contrivance" does not jibe with the pictures of jubilation we're seeing from Baghdad. Finally, the monotonous cries of "No Blood for Oil" are beyond ridiculous. Our economy is seriously stalled largely because of this war, we've lost in the neighborhood of 100 soldiers so far, over 1000 civilian lives and will pay at least 100 billion for the war/occupation if not more. To benefit US oil companies? Oliver Stone would be hard pressed to come up with that scenario. No, the reason for this war is to stem the dangerously anti-western sentiment which, if we do nothing, will lead to many more September 11ths. - EW
4/9 4:20pm Well, the war is almost over, we control most of the country, and we STILL haven't been able to find any weapons of mass destruction. So far, all of the suspected WMD's have turned out to be nothing. For those of you with a short memory, the CERTAINTY that Iraq had WMD's was the SOLE reason given to the world by the Bush administration for this war of aggression. So, if our increasingly desperate search for WMD's comes up dry, will you war-mongers admit that this war should not have been fought, or will you instead re-define the war aim after the fact as "freeing the Iraqi people", or some other contrivance? - WJB
[Now it's been ``regime change'' all along. Long live revisionist history! Like they say, it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. But there are reports now of long, heavily guarded Iraqi convoys traveling to Syria late last year, so they had cause to suspect that no WMDs would be discovered. - Wm.]
4/9 3:09pm Some miscellaneous meanderings (and maybe some food for thought - or at least fuel for the fire.): While I have no doubt most in Baghdad are sincere in their jubilation over the fall of their dictator, remember that many of these same individuals were burning our flag and protesting our invasion just last week. And before you point out it was because someone was holding a gun to their back, think for just a minute. As a population they have learned that who ever has the gun has the power and you best be very public with your display of affection. (I even heard one reporter, albeit on the liberal radio WBZ, reminding listeners that the Iraq population wants to be rid of Saddam - but also wants no part of the US.) Has anybody else noticed that talk of "what should be done about Iran" is appearing with more and more frequency in the media? In the irony of the week category: While the media decried the opulence of Saddam's palaces in juxtaposition to the poverty in the rest of the country, the leaders of "the coalition of the willing" were meeting in a castle in one of the poorer cities controlled by the United Kingdom... Another radio report today pointed out that the ration kits being distributed in Iraq had directions in English, French and Spanish, but not Arabic. That underscores "our" sensitivity to the world stage - and fits perfectly with the trip the Commander-in-Chief made earlier this week to "Belfast, Ireland." (In case that's too subtle, Belfast is in Northern Ireland and for those of us who have ever had the chance to visit, you know you don't ever confuse the two.) To PC re. your Kerry comment. Remember, at least Kerry speaks from experience. When he put the uniform on, he followed orders. (article) And finally, come on DAF, don't serve up such softballs - "Could you explain why the Bush administration is passing Afghanistan over to the UN to rebuild while hanging on tightly to Iraq?" Can you say.... "OIL"? Or is it spelled H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N? - TMB
4/9 1:06pm Ah PC, you have returned! I figured you'd wait until the "jubilation" in Iraq was in full swing. Right now we still have a mix of jubilation and death from above. So, what do think should happen in a post-war Iraq? Specifically, do you support the calls for an international war crimes tribunal made by Senators Specter and Biden and Congressman Weldon instead of the Bush plan for a kangaroo court? Could you explain why the Bush administration is passing Afghanistan over to the UN to rebuild while hanging on tightly to Iraq? Perhaps the Institute could share some of their learnings? - DAF
4/9 12:46pm To DAF: This one is for you. BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers pulled down a huge statue of Saddam Hussein in the heart of Baghdad on Wednesday and ecstatic Iraqis danced on it in contempt for the man who ruled them with an iron grip for 24 years.- MSIn scenes reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Iraqi men climbed the 20-foot-high statue and tied a noose around its neck in the chaos that engulfed the city after U.S. tanks and troops poured in.
[... (Reuters)]
4/9 11:04am How appropriate... US Marines yank down the Butcher statue for the world to see.... I wonder how many politically correct whiners are anguishing over that one. Job well done, Mr. President.... do you think John Kerry will file a Senate bill to rebuild it?? - PC
For the older messages, look here.