Yezidi are “devil worshippers”. Well, only if you’re being bigoted and hateful - they’re a sort of gnostic tribal cult which believes that a Lucifer-like demiurge, called the Peacock Angel, rebelled against the Most High, was punished, and reconciled, whereupon the Peacock Angel was put in charge of the world. He’s propitiated and given obedience, but never trusted. If you were an abused minority, wouldn’t you suspect that the world was run by devils?

There are still somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Yezidi in the world, mostly in northern Iraq. You can’t become Yezidi - they’re born into the religion. I have never - never! - heard a reliable rumor or story that the Yezidi are any worse than the usual run of humanity. They’re just another persecuted religious minority. I’ve heard much worse of the Druze and Alawites, for instance.

So, Cole just called us all a bunch of devil-worshippers, and managed to insult a harmless, persecuted, vulnerable religious minority and spread a horrible lie about them - that they might be likely to destroy a mosque - as he did it. What a marvelous display of Arabist nuance and sensitivity!

“So, Cole just called us all a bunch of devil-worshippers”

The problem really makes itself apparent when the people who are supposed to be running this show reveal themselves to be illiterate.

“They make themselves look like Yazid.”

Now either you can read or you can’t. Check your dictionary for “make…..look like”.

Cole obviously wasn’t referring to himself. Or is all this above your head?

The Yezidi sounds like a holdover of old Persian Zoroastrianism. It certainly is interesting how traces of that religion persists: the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit is Zoroastrianist in origin.

But, regarding what’s happening in Iraq, I think Juan Cole is reacting like any other left-wing academic does when the field of his study is in the public eye: he tries to vie for attention as the voice of authority. However, there are many other scholars in the field, and we can contrast and compare, and make our own assessments. For my money, I would be worried if Bernard Lewis was worried.

The whole Iraq war is an excellent opportunity to test how far the US can go in forcing change on the Muslim world. Again, one of the reasons the US has nothing to lose by taking such risks, is that the entire world has been subjected to essentially European-inspired anti-American bigotry, which has the unintended consequence of giving the US immense latitude to act unilaterally.

While the prison imagery certainly was shocking, it certainly is good that it happened at this time, instead of October, before the elections. In fact, the housecleaning that it inspired can be turned into an effective lesson for fledgling democracies… though I’m sure bigots in Europe will continue to use it for their own purposes.

Well said and I’m also torn between the same scary scenarios.

However:

“A war like the one we are supposed to be waging on terrorism will not be won through fear, only by our winning respect.”

I don’t think there’s any ’rational’ way of ’winning’ the ’war on terror’ - sorry for all the ’ ’.

What happens now underscores the radical’s and terrorist’s cause, but I don’t think there’s reversely a way to win their respect. The paradigms are totally different, they don’t respect the Western way of life regardless of what the West does or says. There are ways to make the situation worse (see current situation) but to make it better? I let this question stand - every attempt to answer it turns out to be too facile or too utopian or just too stupid…

What is it that makes you in the “eu” care more for an Iraqi cemetary than the one’s on your own soil that are dissecrated by your own citizens on a weekly basis? Your systemic “utopian eu fantasy on welfare” BS will in time get you the same treatment as the murdered Spanish policeman who was pulled from his grave last month, had a spike driven through his head and then was set ablaze at the gates of the spanish cemetary where he was buried. The cowardly virgin-seeking jihad fool who committed this act is among you with 10’s of 10,000’s of his cowardly henchman. It is purely amazing that you play the bleeding heart role to these scum who would blow your head right off, regardless of your level of appeasement to them mr Juanito.
The people of Najaf want this bearded freak out of their city, would you in the “eu” care to give this brave animal welfare money and shelter as you do to others who share his views?
History will prove with no doubt that it is those in the “eu” who are the one’s “gone mad” in these modern times.

Not Yezidi, Yazid, as in Caliph Yazid:

“[known as] Yazid of Wines since he abandoned rose sherbet for the grape, an amiable and democratic prince, sportsman, musician, and poet, was for hundreds of years perhaps the most vilified ruler in history.

It was his misfortune to have sacked rebellious Medina (in what is now Saudi Arabia) and borne the responsibility for the Battle of Kerbala (in present-day Iraq) where Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad together with his followers, was defeated and killed.”

I vote for deleting Pato’s comment.

…for the first time sending tanks into Najaf’s vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its tombs.”

I suspect that a good propaganda effort might involve portraying guerrilla positions in its tombs as being a desecration. I don’t find an Islamic belief in ’I can shoot at you but you can’t shoot at me’ very compelling and frankly I doubt that it exists.

I can only plead haste, irritation, and a small, easily misread font. Yes, Cole wasn’t being bigoted about the Yezidi, he was being pedantic about a historical reference. My apologies.

I don’t think he was being Pedantic.

This particular “Hussein” buried at Kerbala seems to be the Shiite equivalent of St. Peter.

For the sake of going after someone who was a political irritant, we are risking a real holy war with all Shiites, not just Iraqis.

If our military leadership, especially the Commander In Chief, doesn’t understand that, Prof. Cole is correct…it has no business meddling in the Middle East.

Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times on Wednesday, was very sharp in his critique of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. I don’t have a direct link but Brad Delong quotes substantial extracts on his website:

” . . Crafting a foreign policy for a new era is hard. The last time this had to be done was in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman more than half a century ago. The institutions they established and the values they upheld were the foundation of the successful US foreign policy of the postwar era. Now, a task even more complex has fallen on this president. He is not up to the job. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical one. The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush.” - from: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000817.html

Patrick,

As if a war with the sort of Shia supporting this clown wouldn’t be a good in and of itself. :^)

http://expert.ics.purdue.edu/~sunilkul/Articles/Terrorism/InfiniteJustice_EnduringFreedom.txt

as a proud citizen of the so called utopian eu i care as much for a cemetary in iraq as anywhere else - everybody deserves to be shown a level of respect regardless of where they died and what faith they were. What is more, if the west wishes to serve as a type of global police force then we must also accept the responsibility of setting a moral standard, otherwise we can have no pretence of legitimacy. Obviouslt this type of sentiment will go over the head of pato, but i have faith that the majority of people, “bleeding heart” or not, will avoid such reductive typecasting as this and see the bigger picture.
on the subject of the Yazidis, there is a very good article in the Independent 29/11/03 called “Hell’s Angels” that explains their situation very well. It is worth remembering that the last group to “sack” medina was Wahhab and Saud - the founders of what is now known as Saudi Arabia.

Bernard,
As if a war with the sort of Shia supporting this clown wouldn’t be a good in and of itself. :^)

If you truly believe that, I encourage you to follow Pat Tillman’s example. May you not find his fate.

If we desecrate Shiite Holy sites going after an upstart politician like Sadr, we’ll have to deal not just with Sadr’s Militia, but With Iran to the East, Lebanese Hezbolla to the West, and with Turkmen from the North.

What a great way to internationalize this conflict, eh ?

Patrick,

“What a great way to internationalize this conflict, eh ?”

You read the link, I assume? I’ve _always_ been in favor of internationalization. :^)

Interesting that you mention Tillman, though. I’ve been tossing around the idea of getting back into the Guard for a bit, now. Gotta see if I can swing a direct commission at this age, though…

Although Yazid is not the Yezidi - it’s worth pointing out that the most thriving Yezidi communities are those in Armenia/Georgia and among the Kurdish diaspora in Germany. Those in SE Turkey and N Iraq have been under severe religious pressure for centuries and are in terminal decline.

The German PDS (ex-Communists) even have a Yezidi MEP (Feleknas Uca), probably the world’s only Yezidi parliamentarian, and if they win seven seats next month, they will continue to have one.

is that the entire world has been subjected to essentially European-inspired anti-American bigotry, which has the unintended consequence of giving the US immense latitude to act unilaterally.

LOL! Do you actually believe this nonsense? The American right and their motley crew of supporters will continue to make catastrophic errors as long as they believe their own propaganda.

Read and rejoice:

“BLINKING into the afternoon sun, hundreds of Iraqi prisoners poured off buses yesterday into this volatile market town carrying small bags with meagre possessions and recounting tales of abuse at the hands of their American captors in Abu Ghraib prison…

“But, if the release was intended as a damage limitation exercise after allegations of mistreatment by US army prison guards, it failed. In interviews, former inmates spoke of being treated like animals, of beatings and electric shock treatment. Most claimed that women inmates had been raped, a charge that provoked disgust among local people…

“The Bush Administration signalled for the first time last night that the new Iraqi authority that takes control after June 30 will have the power to expel US and British troops.” - from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1110921,00.html

“Public support for President George W. Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq has plunged to only 36 per cent and his approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to a Zogby poll due out on Sunday.” - from Financial Times (subscription) 15 May 2004.

Without further information it’s hard to say, but I’d guess that the supposition as to how Berg’s password was found “in the possession of accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zaccarias Moussaoui” was that Moussaoui had obtained the password dishonestly. I doubt it was because he just happened to have chosen the same password as Berg.

I believe that the reasons the US is becoming more aggressive regarding al-Sadr is that they think that popular opinion is with them. When al-Sistani and the rest of the Shiite clerics finally called on al-Sadr to disarm and surrender, I think that was but a reflection of the populace. I admit that I have a hard time understanding how stockpiling weapons in a mosque, and actually firing from it are not desecration, but that may be a subtle nuance of Islamic culture that I am unaware of. But here is the real question: “Do you believe that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism was a rising danger in the world? And if so, what would have proposed we do about it?” There is no question that the US has not been perfect in its execution of this war and occupation. Americans admire competancy, and examples of incompetancy bother everyone. But, in general, events are unfolding as hoped for by the Americans. There is no civil war between Shiite and Sunni (as much as al-Sadr tried to foment one), there has been no mass exodus of refugees, the Iraqi economy has been recovering, infrastructure is well above pre-war levels (problems with electricity were news, but bringing electricity into villages is not. Hmm.). Does America show “Contempt for their religious beliefs”? Or have Americans gone to great lengths to accomodate the religious beliefs of three mutually hostile sects? America went in to Iraq, and America is not leaving until the people of Iraq ask them to. That is the way that this is going to happen. Many here have expressed their displeasure with these facts. What were they proposing 18 months ago? How would the world be better off?

Simon,
I think you need to get more trustworthy sources of information. May I suggest, for starters, reading Juan Cole’s Informed Comment for a better understanding of why the occupation is going down so badly.

Patrick,
Thanks for that tip about Prof Juan Cole’s Informed Comment. It is a great site for running posts on Iraq news and analysis and I’ve not given it the attention it is due.

Patrick,
I looked at Juan Cole’s site and it is interesting. But I hardly would consider him an unbiased source for information. In fact, I think that he is quite open about his biases. While the opinions of educated people can be very valuable and interesting, I try to gather my factual information from resources with some assurance that all information is provided, not just what is of interest to the author. I stand by my earlier position: The Americans have stated a goal (stabilization of the ME, and reduction of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism) and a plan for an activity in support of this goal (the liberalization and restoration of Iraq, and its return to a repersentative government). If you have disagreements with the goal or the plan, I would be very interested in alternatives. These may not be the best choices, but I did not hear of any others. As to the implementation of the plan, well, its not perfect. Mistakes are made. But is the desired goal still obtainable? I believe it is. The shock and disgust shown by America over the actions at Abu Ghraib stand in very stark contrast to the apathy of the Arab world over the abuses of Hussein. Abuses which are not in any way comparable.
The traditional Liberal viewpoint (at least in the US) was that the world could be a better place, that actions can be taken to make it so. When did everyone give up? When was it decided that inaction was better than action? We may still care about suffering people, but when did we stop doing anything about it? If you don’t like the plan, and the actions in support of the plan, then what is your plan? What actions do you recommend to prevent this scourge of terrorism, the creeping fascism of these ideologies?

Simon: What are your own sources of information which you prefer to Cole? You don’t cite a single one! You seem to be winging it.

Cole is an expert on the area who does his research in Arabic. What you call his “biasses” look like “conclusions” or even “knowledge” to me. You seem to be of the school that allows itself to discard all information that it doesn’t like.

Nothing you say seems informed either about the facts in Iraq or a specific proposal for how to deal with them. Your posts seem to be entirely made up of ideological statements and accusations. We are saying that the American position seems to be collapsing, and you are in effect demanding that we have a plan to resuscitate it.

No civil war between the Shias and Sunnis yet: because they seem to be uniting against us for the moment. A rare accomplishment, but not desirable one.

Patrick,

I do not mean to impugn Juan Cole, I don’t even know him. However, as I read through the site I find a collection of articles that are critical of the US occupation, reportage of bad news, and consistently presenting the view of the author. Great. But this is not a news source, anymore than Michael Moore is a news source. These are people putting forth arguments that support their views. But here is the simple test: Go to any date on Prof. Cole’s site, and look for any good news. Look, I understand you disagree with what the US is doing here. All I ask is that rather than just ctiticize the actions of those who are willing to do something, that you make constructive suggestions. What else should be done? One of the things I like best about Americans is their ability to admit that something is not working, and something else needs to be tried. Well, what’s the something else?

As to where I get my information, well, the only truly unimpugnable source is admission by the party most likely to be damaged. I believe that certain events happened at Abu Ghraib, because the US military investigated and published the results of those investigations. I have personally spoken people who have recently returned from Iraq, both military and press. Sure, they only see a sliver of what is going on, but I understand that. Can we at least agree on my points from my first post? The infrastructure is improving, no civil war has occurred, and no refugee crisis sprang up. If you disagree with these points, well, OK, point me to the evidence. I’m open minded. There is a chance here to do something great for all mankind. If the 100’s of millions of Arabs can overcome their own oppressive governments, cast off the systemic corruption, and enjoy the benefits of representative governments, than that would be a great thing! Is this not just a continuation in the war against fascism? Totalinarianism? Yes, I believe that a free, democratically elected, representative way of government is the best one. It may look like the American form, the European form, or any form that the Iraqis want. That is the goal, and I evaluate everything in relation to that goal. Are there mistakes made? Is the process flawed? Are the people involved flawed? Sure, maybe, but I’m focused on the goal. Normal people with good lives, good jobs, security, self-respect, and pride do not go around murdering 1000s of others. I admit I may be naive, but as someone who values personal freedom so much, how can I be any other way?

Simon,
I think your last post was directed at Zizka rather than myself.

You might also want to look at Col Lounsbury on MENA.

Please note that both of these gentlemen are Arabic speakers intimately familiar with the region. They have access to sources which we don’t.

If these two knowledgeable Americans of different political stripes agree that the events in Iraq are proving disastrous to us, then may be on to something, don’tcha think ?

Patrick,

I try to make a distinction between pundits and news sources. Pundits look for evidence supporting their positions, while a news source (ideally) just reports on facts. However, I don’t think anyone believes that any news source is reporting all the facts. That they compete against each other colours what they choose to report. But still, by cross referencing sources with different agendas (say Reuters vs. Fox) a picture can be built up. Also, I do believe most statistical reports, if they are readily fact checked.

The bigger question is how much time do we spend reviewing news sources that tend to disagree with us? My point on Juan Cole’s site was that all of the material was there to support the conclusions he had already drawn: ie That the actions of America in Iraq were ill-advised and doomed. I find it troublesome that there is no accomodation made that he may be wrong. Are we to believe that nothing good has occured in Iraq? No one is better off than before?

Simon,
How much accomodation are you yourself making for the possibility that all the vaunted ’Good news’ concerning Iraq is likely irrelevant ?

Patrick,

I am not sure what you meant. As I said, I measure the “good” or “bad” nature of news against the success of the new Iraqi state. I am sure that there are reports, both pleasant and unpleasant, that bear little impact on the ultimate success of Iraq. We frequently hear about having to “filter out the noise”. This is tremendously difficult, as the Internet is a wonderful conduit for noise. There will be good days, and there will be bad days. I try not to get to caught up in either. If there is one metric that I value above others, that would be the opinions of the Iraqis themselves, in polling and postings. They seem to want their country back, but realize that they need some help setting things up. America does not want to be in Iraq. Soldiers stationed in foreign countries, under stress and fire, is not a popular thing. If it was just about the oil, well 100 Billion dollars buys a lot of oil, and probably could buy entire governments.

Simon,
Serene equanimity in the face of a deteriorating situation in Iraq is not the most rational of strategies, but whatever.

Since you claim to value polls of Iraqis, Please read this WaPo article about a poll of Iraqis conducted for the CPA “shortly before the surge in anti-coalition violence and a few weeks before the detainee-abuse scandal became a major issue for the U.S. authorities in Iraq.”:

“In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.”

It’s a good thing that “America does not want to be in Iraq” as you say, because Iraqis don’t seem to want American in Iraq either.

May I suggest that “filtering out noise”, as you put it, isn’t so very hard. What’s truly hard is making sense of the noise after you’ve filtered out the signal.

You won’t get your point across here, Simon. This website is populated by people whose main preoccupation is honing critical, deconstructive skills, - not progressive, constructive argumentation.

Patrick,

Your response is a wonderful example of begging the question. You assume that the actions in Iraq are failing, and then use that assumption to establish that any contrary information is “noise” and only that which supports your premise is “signal”.

Additionally, you have never responded to my original query. I will restate and refine it: Assuming the actions of America are so bad, if you could have absolute authority over American actions in Iraq, what is the first thing you would do?

We might as well ask if the actions of the various nations who both opposed the war, and took bribes from the oil for food program, were any better.

Rather than engage in ceaseless moralization, it would be better if the various nations who claim to have an interest in the problem, moral, economic, or otherwise, would step forward with a constructive solution. No one wanted to step forward and solve the problem in the Balkans until it was too late. No one wanted to step forward and solve the problem in Rwanda. No one wanted to deal with Saddam. Or any other problem, for that matter. There’s a lot of hand wringing going on right now about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, and there are resolutions passed, but nothing is going to be done.

I am reminded of the James Thurber fable, The Rabbits That Caused All The Trouble.

“Within the memory of the youngest child there was a family of rabbits who lived near a pack of wolves. The wolves announced that they did not like the way the rabbits were living. (The wolves were crazy about the way they themselves were living, because it was the only way to live.) One night several wolves were killed in an earthquake and this was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that rabbits pound on the ground with their hind legs and cause earthquakes. On another night one of the wolves was killed by a bolt of lightning and this was also blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that lettuce-eaters cause lightning. The wolves threatened to civilize the rabbits if they didn’t behave, and the rabbits decided to run away to a desert island. But the other animals, who lived at a great distance, shamed them saying, “You must stay where you are and be brave. This is no world for escapists. If the wolves attack you, we will come to your aid in all probability.” So the rabbits continued to live near the wolves and one day there was a terrible flood which drowned a great many wolves. This was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that carrot-nibblers with long ears cause floods. The wolves descended on the rabbits, for their own good, and imprisoned them in a dark cave, for their own protection.
When nothing was heard about the rabbits for some weeks, the other animals demanded to know what had happened to them. The wolves replied that the rabbits had been eaten and since they had been eaten the affair was a purely internal matter. But the other animals warned that they might possibly unite against the wolves unless some reason was given for the destruction of the rabbits. So the wolves gave them one. “They were trying to escape,” said the wolves, “and, as you know, this is no world for escapists.”

Moral: Run, don’t walk, to the nearest desert island.”

Nice Thurber. It goes even better when we can imagine his cartoon drawings illustrating it.

European inaction on the Yugoslavian crisis was a personal eye-opener for me, when it comes to understanding European anti-Americanism. 200,000 dead, and yet the loudest protest was against Clinton’s efforts to put an end to it.

Which he did, by the way.

As President Bush said: “You are either for us or against us”: http://www.agonist.org/archives/ap_iraq_abuse8_040519_ssh.html

“An Iraqi poll to be released next week shows a surge in the popularity of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical young Shia cleric fighting coalition forces, and suggests nearly nine out of 10 Iraqis see US troops as occupiers and not liberators or peacekeepers.” - from Financial Times of Thursday at (subscription): http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1084907692167&p=1012571727085

Of course, there are two possible, credible explanations: (a) crass incompetence on the part of Rumsfeld and the US military command; (b) moral degeneracy.

Which is it?

I believe the more credible explanation is the banality of evil. Most people in any country, in any organization, don’t think enough about the consequences of the things they do. There isn’t a country in the world that can boast of a history of prisons that have absolutely no incidents of abuse or torture.

What is important is that if we assume that moral degeneracy is part of the human condition, then we must have institutions that allow the degeneracy to be exposed and to be stopped. One might argue then that the US has such a system in place - and that its military has such a system in place. The investigations were the result of a US soldier reporting these crimes. And although the system is not perfect - we may never know how high up the authorization may have been - the abuses, at least in this prison, will stop. And others who wish to abuse prisoners in other US military prisons will think twice.

I remember witnessing German police beat demonstrators in the late 1980s. It was obviously punishment, and no charges were ever brought against the police. It was even videotaped. If a US citizen is beaten by US police on videotape, there’s a lawsuit - police lose their jobs - compensation happens. One German policeman explained to me that if they want to protest, they have to expect a few lumps. He had just finished beating a woman to the ground.

I’m sorry. The Europeans do not have a monopoly on morality.

Simon,
I’ve given you three separate sources of information that each indicate the situation in Iraq is going down very badly.

You have reciprocated with exactly none.

Why don’t you start by actually providing me with contradictory information before claiming that I am filtering out what I don’t want to hear.

Bob,
Your options (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive.

Having been to a fair number of hotspots where the news didn’t coincide with reality, and having spoken to more than a few people who have just come back from the sandbox, I can’t say that things are going as bad as some press outlets would have you believe.

It’s probably a good thing that the press has not been present at the majority of historical events. I would imagine that if the BBC had been present at Trafalgar, they would have cast the death of Nelson as a British defeat.

I also remember during the First Gulf War - the press bought the whole line that there would be a massive frontal attack - they were predicting thousands of US casualties in the minefields and fire trenches. Even when I saw two CNN reporters watching us do the feint towards Kuwait, then get our vehicles back on the transporters and move 150 miles up the road to do the end run in through the Neutral Zone, they couldn’t figure out what we were doing - even though it was obvious. They thought we were running away. They were standing right there looking at us.

Perceptions of what is going on at a particular place are colored by who is talking to you, what their agenda is, who you are, and what your agenda is. It can’t be helped.

Most news organizations would be happy to see Iraq as a quagmire. Compared to Vietnam, it hardly qualifies. But a long quagmire was good for news ratings during that war - and editors and advertisers haven’t forgotten the value of shocking photos of violent behavior during the evening meal.

Patrick,

If things are going so badly in Iraq, what do you propose should be done about it?

Simon,

For a start, fire Rumsfeld. The stables need cleaning. It is to the huge credit of parts of American media that it has gone out of its way to publicise the moral degeneracy of the Bush regime.

In what way is Bush a moral degenerate? I would prefer a clearer statement of the man’s supposed sins than a simple ad hominem catch phrase. And better yet, compare his moral degeneracy to several US presidents.

Sometimes I believe that the people who hate Bush are the people who were burned up when the Clinton haters brought up the “moral degeneracy” of the blue dress and the unorthodox use of cigars in the Oval Office (no puns intended). They wish they could catch Bush in some personal peccadillo - but they aren’t able to.

Having heard many military officers openly and repeatedly discuss sedition when they were serving under Clinton, I don’t believe that certain US presidents could reliably get the military to perform on demand. And they knew it. So not all officers and enlisted are going to like having their boss replaced.

It would take very very little for a small cadre of military officers to turn a future John Kerry’s plans for withdrawing from Iraq into the biggest debacle in American military history. They don’t have to disobey his orders - they just have to implement them poorly. They could be very, very unhelpful.

John Kwon,
It’s probably a good thing that the press has not been present at the majority of historical events. I would imagine that if the BBC had been present at Trafalgar, they would have cast the death of Nelson as a British defeat.

The death of Nelson certainly wasn’t British defeat, but you can’t say his death wasn’t Britain’s loss.

To your larger point about different perspectives leading to different conclusions; You describe journalists that were fooled by events that they didn’t completely understand. haha, funny.

It’s a different matter when our civilian/military leaders ordered actions in a situation that they didn’t completely understand…and willfully ignored advice from more knowledgeable parties.

The examples of the latter include Wolfowitz’s assertion that General Shinseki’s troop level estimate was wildly off the mark, the lack of regard given to the State department’s post-invasion contigency plans, and Bremer’s firing of the Iraq’s army 400,000 soldiers in the face of massive Iraqi unemployment.

You can argue that each of these was a calculated risk, however none of them seems to have paid off and there doesn’t seem to have been a backup plan in case any of them didn’t come off as expected.

The lack of effective contigency planning indicates such a high and pervasive level of incompetence that Iraqis probably would be better served by us completely pulling out than by us staying.

Simon,
If things are going so badly in Iraq, what do you propose should be done about it?

I favor General Odom’s plan of announcing a date of withdrawal and sticking to it.

However, I would tack on to it a third-party escrow to be paid over a number of years to whatever governing authority may emerge from Iraq, so long as civil war is avoided during that time. Perhaps a couple hundred billion dollars over 10 years, something like that.

Patrick, I guess my point is that reporters are often reporting on things they don’t understand. Even the lowliest private understood the maneuver we were undertaking -without having been told about it. Since they don’t understand, but they have to file a story, they make up the story as they go along. Their bias then fills in the details. I laughed when I heard that we were going to perish by the thousands on the first day.

As for backup plans, or contingency plans, you can’t turn a nation like a small car. If you’re going the wrong way, you’re not going to turn or stop even if you want to. I believe that Rumsfeld knew that we would be stuck in Iraq for at least as long as the US has been in Germany. Without being told, I understood that on the day the invasion of Iraq took place.

It’s one thing to be wrong about the presence of WMD and invade, and then find out there’s very little there. But you can’t afford to be wrong at all in the other direction - because any use by any Islamic group of any WMD in the future will be politically unacceptable to the US populace.

Yes, they’re upset about being occupied, as they should be. And US citizens are upset about the war.

Now think - we have been finding the shells with Sarin in Iraq. Imagine just a couple of those shells killing several thousand people in an anonymous attack somewhere in the US. Now imagine the reaction.

Concentration camps. True genocide. Perhaps the use of nuclear weapons on an Arab target. After such an event, it would not be enough to invade and occupy. It wouldn’t satisfy the average American. And, after such an attack, Europe would probably stay out of the way, at least for a few weeks.

So, would you rather have the US try and occupy these countries one by one, trying to mold them into something else, or would you rather sit back and wait for the next bad thing to happen? You’ll run out of options completely if the “next bad thing” comes down. Occupation looks positively moral and ethical in that light. Waiting until you have no choice but to annihilate a population in anger doesn’t appear very civilized by comparison.

Patrick,

Thanks for the reply. While it is certainly a topic worth discussing, I think that announcing an exit date would merely serve to destabilise Iraq further. As different militias and armed groups tussle for power, who will protect the populace? Wouldn’t this just encourage the various factions to just wait for the US to leave before they start struggling for supremecy? And how would the Iraqi’s feel when the US announces that they are leaving on a certain day, whether or not Iraq is in a stable condition? And finally, what is the damage to US credibility when they “cut and run”, after promising to stay until the job was done?

As to your escrow account, who decides? Who pays? Where does the money come from? Where is it in escrow? I suspect that the oil-for-food fiasco has left most of the world distrustful of such operations.

But I do applaud your thoughts on how to resolve these affairs. I think that we disagree on what can be done, as well as what should be done. But I am always willing to listen and learn, because if I am the smartest person around, well, we are all doomed!

“In what way is Bush a moral degenerate?”

Unless Rumsfeld is fired - and fired soon - for the abuse of prisoners in US military control, all the mantra about accountability in democracies is exposed as a complete sham.

Besides that, try this on Ashcroft, the US Attorney General, who put McCotter in charge of Abu Ghraib prison: http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000732.html

I’m waiting for all the Christian fundies who, by many accounts, support the Bush regime to come out on whether they support the torture of prisoners.

As for military incompetence at the highest levels:

“An obscure Army captain wrote the interrogation rules. The general in charge never saw them, even though his title appears on the document as the officer who must approve especially harsh techniques. Yet somehow the rules wound up on the wall of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison.” - from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-20-interrogatin-rules_x.htm

John Kwon,
In what way is Bush a moral degenerate? I would prefer a clearer statement of the man’s supposed sins.

You might recall this from Bush’s religious biographer, Stephen Mansfield:

“Aides found him face down on the floor in prayer in the Oval Office. It became known that he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq, a partial fast seldom reported of an American president.”

From October 2003:
“Bush was in an expansive mood on the flight from Indonesia to Australia, wearing an Air Force One flight jacket, snacking noisily on a butterscotch sweets and chopping the air for emphasis.”

If he, a non-church-attending Born-Again Christian made a vow to God not to eat sweets while our troops were in Iraq,…and he broke that vow,
then I think he qualifies as morally degenerate.

oh, and his apologies for the torture scandal are less than credible without real follow-through. The fact that he’s content with just an apology to the King of Jordan (???), marks him as morally degenerate.

John,
It’s one thing to be wrong about the presence of WMD and invade, and then find out there’s very little there.

…and wreck our military capability in a pointless war ? So that if a real attack did occur, we wouldn’t be able to respond ?

This is not a what-if scenario. We have solid proof that North Korea is developing Nuclear weapons, and has ICBM delivery capability. So what do we do ? We pull 10% of our supposedly untouchable Korean theatre troops to send them to Iraq. Iraq, which despite Condoleeza Rice’s fearmongering, hadn’t had a real nuclear weapons development program in over a decade.

Simon,
I think that announcing an exit date would merely serve to destabilise Iraq further.

It’s hard to imagine how.

As different militias and armed groups tussle for power, who will protect the populace?

It’s not as if the U.S. is currently succeeding in that function.

Wouldn’t this just encourage the various factions to just wait for the US to leave before they start struggling for supremecy?

I don’t think so, but it would be a plus from our perspective if that came to pass.

And how would the Iraqi’s feel when the US announces that they are leaving on a certain day, whether or not Iraq is in a stable condition?

Relieved ?

And finally, what is the damage to US credibility when they “cut and run”, after promising to stay until the job was done?

The U.S. has already lost much credibility from this debacle, and it’s obvious that it can’t finish the job. Cutting our losses while we can would actually be a net gain, showing that we haven’t completely lost our senses.

As to your escrow account, who decides? Who pays? Where does the money come from? Where is it in escrow? I suspect that the oil-for-food fiasco has left most of the world distrustful of such operations.

I’ve got new for you: the oil-for-food fiasco is another of Chalabi’s cons for which he has provided no proof.

The U.N. is the logical choice for setting up an agency to oversee such an escrow account. The details are negotiable.

Recent news from the Financial Times posted on Friday:

“Crispin Blunt, a British opposition MP who has just returned from Iraq, however, described the preparations for the handover on July 1 as a ’complete shambles’.

“The former soldier and Conservative MP described the US approach to occupation as little more than ’a campaign to intimidate the Iraqi people’.

“He said that UK troops in Iraq did not yet know what their status would be once the new interim government took over on July 1.

“’We are seeing the collapse of American policy,’ he told BBC radio’s Today programme.”

“’We are seeing the collapse of American policy,’

Bob, enemy of Americans, can barely hide his glee.

RSN - Back to “label and smear”?

I recognise, even if you can’t or won’t, that America is a liberal democracy, constitutionally committed to political pluralism, as well as the implications of that. Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, didn’t support the Iraq war from the start and nor did the libertarian CATO Institute. Nor did countless millions of other Americans. In the 2000 US Presidential, more Americans voted for the other guy. As some of us vividly recall, it all came down to hanging chads in Florida and a Supreme Court decision, not exactly the regular stuff of a well-functioning, popular democracy.

Americans who incline to make judgemental comments about “Europeans”, as though we all constitute a uniform species with stereotypical views, hardly have just cause for complaint if some Europeans comment on the evident policy failings of the current political administration in America, especially when we gather news and critical commentary from mainstream American media. Vive pluralism and vive the web. Some of us are disinclined to presume Neoconservatism has yet gained the status of a prevailing totalitarian ideology in America.

A UK poll in April by a leading polling organisations here yielded a fascinating insight: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/04/20/OmGuardian-1.pdf

As the polling was done 16-18 April, it was before news emerged in American media of extensive prisoner abuse in Iraq by the military forces of the Coalition of the Willing.

Responses to Qu.3 in the poll: “How much confidence do you have in the American’s handling of the situation in Iraq?” showed consistent and fairly steep gradients by region and by social class. The most sceptical of American handling were the AB social classes in the south of England while DE social classes in the north were the most confident.

In other contexts, we could expect the AB social classes in southern England to more closely identify with stereotypical views of American values, as well as being better educated and informed on average. Indeed, that has tended to be a fairly standard and frequent complaint in Britain about ABs living in the south of England as George Orwell noted in his book: The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) about poverty in the north of England during the depression years: http://www.george-orwell.org/North_And_South/0.html

I am especially reminded of the passage: “There is no doubt about the Englishman’s inbred conviction that those who live to the south of him are his inferiors; even our foreign policy is governed by it to some extent. I think, therefore, that it is worth pointing out when and why it came into being. When nationalism first became a religion, the English looked at the map, and, noticing that their island lay very high in the Northern Hemisphere, evolved the pleasing theory that the further north you live the more virtuous you become.”

Just for the record, Dougla Hurd, who was Britain’s foreign secretary at the time of Gulf I, and Malcolm Rifkind, his successor through to Tony Blair’s ascendancy in 1997, both opposed the Iraq war. It seems Blair signed us up to supporting the Iraq war shortly after 9-11: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185438,00.html

Considering that the UN has presided over more massacres of more people than any other organization in history (well, perhaps the Catholic Church), I wouldn’t trust them to do anything right. One of the main reasons is that even more so than a government (such as the US or UK), the UN is accountable to no one, especially if they fail or act corruptly.

Considering the paperwork for the bribes that was found (including the bribing of that Scottich MP), and considering the recent confessions of bribery of UN officials and heads of state by Saddam (over 300 names), I believe that the UN officials were taking bribes on a massive scale from the oil for food program. The mere fact that Kofi Annan (the man who knowingly permitted the slaughter of millions of Rwandans) has refused to let anyone see any records, or allow any UN officials to talk to anyone, is proof enough for me.

As for “moral degeneracy”, how does Kofi Annan rate to you? Dallaire asked Kofi Annan several times for permission to stop the upcoming Rwandan genocide - up to four weeks prior to the debacle - and Kofi explicitly allowed the massacres to take place. He didn’t even warn anyone. It’s a far more degenerate act than eating candy, or even torturing prisoners. Killing people by the millions - allowing it, knowing about it, and doing nothing to stop it when you have the means to stop it - that’s prima facie evidence of moral degeneracy to me. I would rank Kofi Annan as a moral degenerate somewhere between Chamberlain and Hitler.

As far as I’m concerned, the UN is a collection of the world’s moral degenerates, and is a cesspool of moral degeneracy. The idea that anyone would trust them to do anything right is appalling.

John,

The UN is only able to deploy such military resources as are made available by its member states’ governments. In the UN Security Council session on Iraq during February 2003, the permanent members, apart from America and Britain, were taking the line that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to complete their task of searching for WMD in Iraq before sanctioning war - and as Tony Blair famously said in a keynote speech to the Chicago Economic Club in April 1999: “If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.” - from: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=4&kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=829

As we now know, no WMD have been found in Iraq and that after Blair had claimed - four times in a dossier presented to a special session of Britain’s Parliament on 24 September 2002 - that Iraq’s military was able to use WMD within “45 minutes” of a command being given: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf

We were taken to war on a false prospectus. Blair had no approval from Britain’s Parliament until the debate on 18 March 2003 when British troops were already stationed on Iraq’s borders, poised for invasion before the heat of the Iraq summer began. Blair was relying on ancient powers of the Royal prerogatives to authorise preparations for the war, not approval by Britain’s elected legislature.

We did not learn until late last summer from the Hutton inquiry that the supposed intelligence on Iraq’s WMD related only to small calibre, “battlefield” weapons, which did not constitute any security threat to Britain or to Britain’s base in Cyprus.

From the Iraq Body Count we have the appalling estimate that some 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as the result of the war. We now know of the extensive use of torture on Iraqi prisoners, as well as homicides, and that after the Red Cross reported troops as saying 70 per cent or more of those detained had been picked up by chance.

The latest revelations about Chalabi have just added a dimension of pure farce to the Pentagon’s planning and conduct of the war: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5019721/

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, his deputy, have become a global laughing stock.

John Kwon,
I don’t know where you are getting your information from…but I have issues with it.

you said:
Considering the paperwork for the bribes that was found (including the bribing of that Scottich MP), and considering the recent confessions of bribery of UN officials and heads of state by Saddam (over 300 names)

Funny because this AP story from thursday says something rather different:

Allegations of corruption in the program surfaced in January in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada, which published a list of about 270 former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales that were part of the U.N. program.

continuing, you said:
The mere fact that Kofi Annan (the man who knowingly permitted the slaughter of millions of Rwandans) has refused to let anyone see any records, or allow any UN officials to talk to anyone, is proof enough for me.

A powerful set of charges, but uhm, that AP story I just cited ended with this:
Annan launched an internal inquiry in February but canceled it in March to allow a broader, independent examination as allegations of massive corruption in the U.N. program grew, calling the world body’s credibility into question.
Annan has said any U.N. staff members failing to cooperate with the inquiry will be fired.

Oh, and about Rwanda ?
The consensus number seems to be roughly 800,000 rwandans killed.
A big number to be sure, but there is a difference between ’almost a million’ and ’millions’. It’s the sort of lack of attention to factual details that undermines the credibility of your accusations.

You said:
Dallaire asked Kofi Annan several times for permission to stop the upcoming Rwandan genocide - up to four weeks prior to the debacle - and Kofi explicitly allowed the massacres to take place. He didn’t even warn anyone.

Let’s examine this critical account of events:
Dufka cited the January 11, 1994, cable from Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander for UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda), who told the head of peace keeping operations for the UN, now Secretary General, Kofi Annan, that he was going to do searches and take possession of arms caches that had been identified to him by his senior informant. The response Dallaire received was “no go.” What the UN urged him to do, Dufka said, was to work through the National Police to urge President Habyarimana to control his domestic militias. “Not a very helpful suggestion seeing as he was the one perpetrating this.”
[…]
“As the arms distribution continued and the domestic tensions rose within Rwanda, General Dallaire repeatedly asked for a broader interpretation of his mandate. After his January 11 telegram, Dallaire sent five more messages specifying the need for action.
[…]
Corinne Dufka said that the United Nations Security Council was getting mixed information about the situation in Rwanda. While General Dallaire was sending cables about the coming extermination of the Tutsi, the UN Secretary General’s representative in Rwanda, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, sent upbeat cables about the situation.

I don’t see any evidence in this article, which is very harsh with the U.N. and the international community, of Kofi Annan or anyone in the U.N. ’explicitly’ allowing the massacre to take place. Kofi Annan was Dallaire’s boss, but did he have the authority to expand Allaire’s mandate to do what was needed to stop the massacre? was that authority even the U.N. Secretary General’s ? or was that authority strictly the Security Council’s ? Nor does there seem to be any evidence that Kofi Annan kept warnings of the coming genocide to himself.

Now, Kofi Annan might still possibly be as morally degenerate as you claim, but the bogus ’facts’ you marshall to make that claim make you look like the moral degenerate rather than Kofi Annan.

Patrick-

I missed my computer all weekend. This thread is becoming quite active.

You seem to be impyling that the presence of the US adds nothing to stability in Iraq. I would point out that Iraq was quite stable, when it was a totalitarian dictatorship. Yet no Iraqi seems to be in a hurry to return Hussein, or any other totalitarian (ie Theocratic) group, to power. If things were worse before regime change, than it follows they must be better now.

As to the UN, I feel that there is a great deal of benefit there, through UNICEF, the WHO, and other NGOs. The problem with the Security Council and General Assembly is two-fold: corruption, and lack of ability. I fear that the UN is finally being exposed for what it too frequently is: an organization of thieves appointed by despots, interested only in perpetuating the staus quo, and making as much money as possible. I don’t think that everyone who works there is like this, but certainly enough to cause the harm. The second problem is the UN’s lack of ability to enforce it’s resolutions. The US abandoned the UN in the course of the run up to the Iraqi war only after it became clear that UN members were reneging on promises, and actively working against the US and any promise of a free Iraq. While the uncovery of the bribes in the oil-for food scandal make this more understandable, it is no less odious.

If you truly believe that the sudden removal of the CPA forces from Iraq will have any good outcome, I am surprised. And very disappointed

Simon,
If you truly believe that the sudden removal of the CPA forces from Iraq will have any good outcome, I am surprised. And very disappointed

Per the WaPo, the CPA had a good percentage of its staff chosen not because of competencies or skills, but because they had sent their resumes to the (conservative) Heritage Foundation.

If the best we have to offer Iraq is a reconstruction effort done by inexperienced incompetents. Then yes, I do think that Iraq would be better off without us.

Back to the U.N.:
The US abandoned the UN in the course of the run up to the Iraqi war only after it became clear that UN members were reneging on promises, and actively working against the US and any promise of a free Iraq.

This is a tired lie. It’s the Bush administration that reneged on its promise to come back to the Security Council for a second resolution prior to attacking Iraq.

Why? because the U.S. didn’t have the votes to win a resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

Why ? Because the U.N. inspectors that went to Iraq could substantiate the accusations the U.S. was making about supposed Iraq’s WMD programs.

Why ? Because Iraq truly didn’t have any anymore.

The U.N. Security council would have been fully justified in turning down the Bush administration request for approval to wage war against Iraq, if it had been called to do so, which it wasn’t.

Thought I would do a check on the latest poll in America - and it doesn’t look to good for the administration:

“The war in Iraq continues to tarnish the approval ratings of President Bush. Evaluations of the way Mr. Bush is handling the war in Iraq, how he is handling foreign policy, and how he is handling his job overall are now at their lowest levels ever in his presidency.

“Mr. Bush’s overall job approval rating has continued to decline. Forty-one percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 52 percent disapprove - the lowest overall job rating of his presidency. Two weeks ago, 44 percent approved. A year ago, two-thirds did.

“Sixty-one percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while just 34 percent approve.” - from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml

Patrick-

You win. You have worn me down. If the Washington Post believes that the CPA personnel in Iraq are universally harmful, well they have no axe to grind. So the Heritage Foundation (for which I detect some contempt from you) has recruited conservatives to go to Iraq. Well, at least you can’t use the sending our poor to die in Iraq canard. The reopening of schools, the immunzation programs, the re-flooding of the marshlands, these are all either lies or are not really good things. You win. Your blind obstinance to any events that do not fit with your manufactured view of the world has raised you to victory. Now for extra credit, please explain how Hussein was not in violation of the 14 UN resolutions (yes 14!) demanding he renounce, surrender, and document that surrender of his bio, chemo, nuclear, and long distance rocketry programs. Extra credit for blaming Hussein’s actions on the US (it may be difficult, but try hard).

It comes down to this, Patrick. I believe in individual freedom. I believe that citizens of free democratic countries have a responsibility to others, to help them have the same freedoms we prize so much. I believe that people have a right to decide how they live, and they deserve that right. I believe that the United States is a force for good in the world. I further believe that the actions in Iraq are a happy confluence of US interest (stabilization of the Middle East) with a truly humanitarian goal (the overthrow of an unstable, brutal, and exceptionally oppressive dictator and his fascist government). I deeply believe that the only possible path to world peace is through more democracies, and fewer dictators. If you don’t believe in these things, than we are so far apart that further discourse is futile. If you do believe in these things, than look at events to see if these things are happening. I don’t care if you are a Liberal or Conservative, Socialist or Fascist. I don’t care if you love George Bush, or hate him. I really, really don’t care. Juan Cole seems to be completely wrong in his predictions of how Karbala and al-Sadr will play out, the Iraqis seem to be working these things out.

So stop complaining about what and who you hate, and start telling what and who you love, and what actions will benefit the greates number and why.

Simon,
If the Washington Post believes that the CPA personnel in Iraq are universally harmful, well they have no axe to grind.

You obviously didn’t read the article.

So the Heritage Foundation (for which I detect some contempt from you) has recruited conservatives to go to Iraq.

My contempt is reserved for the civilian leadership of the Pentagon whose CPA staff selection process seems to have been ideological purity over competence or required skills.

I further believe that the actions in Iraq are a happy confluence of US interest (stabilization of the Middle East) with a truly humanitarian goal (the overthrow of an unstable, brutal, and exceptionally oppressive dictator and his fascist government).

Please notice that the Middle East is notably less stable and less friendly to U.S. interests than it was prior to this war.

Also notice that you are contradicting yourself:
I would point out that Iraq was quite stable, when it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Juan Cole seems to be completely wrong in his predictions of how Karbala and al-Sadr will play out, the Iraqis seem to be working these things out.

This is illogical; How can he be completely wrong about events that have yet to occur ?

So stop complaining about what and who you hate, and start telling what and who you love, and what actions will benefit the greates number and why.

I personally prefer rational discussion to emotional discussion, if you don’t mind. This isn’t about love/hate for me.

Simon, don’t forget that this site is a hate site, filled with anti-Americans, domestic and foreign.

I don’t blame you for being frustrated. The bigotry is overwhelming.

Well then, if we’re thinking that US intervention is always evil, then we must say that the Third Reich was a Germany quite stable under Hitler. Perhaps the US should never have entered the war, and most importantly, should never have invaded Europe. Additionally, the United Kingdom, at the time, should have immediately surrendered to Hitler to avoid all civilian and military casualties (on both sides, of course). Think of the misery in World War II that could have been avoided, including the use of the atom bomb by the US, if the US had never entered the war - if it had capitulated to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Perhaps we would all be speaking German now, and holding our right hands in the air, and wearing black uniforms, in a world more Right Wing than anyone can possibly imagine. But at least there would be peace (well, it would be rather hard on socialists, homosexuals, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Slavs, and anyone else Hitler didn’t like).

And as for the Dallaire/Annan memos that went back and forth for four weeks prior to the massacres - those were facts. To this day you can read them down at the UN in New York. Even if Annan did not have the “authority” to authorize something, at least he could have said something - warned somebody - raised the issue.

Also, I suppose that to someone on the Left, it doesn’t matter if people are massacred - 800,000 is a paltry sum, and as long as no one can say “millions” it’s not an issue.

Having seen massacred Kurdish women and children up close and rotting, courtesy of the late great Saddam (who according to the Left was a great leader who never did anything significantly wrong in his entire life), I feel that knowing a massacre is about to occur requires action of some sort - even if it is unauthorized.

But, I suppose that if I hear two men talking outside of a house that they are going to go in and kill my Left neighbor, and loot his house, I’ll go back to reading my books, confident in the knowledge that by my neighbor’s standards, I have no right, and no authority, and no moral obligation to warn him. Even more, I have no grounds to come to his aid or defense, or even summon the police, and I can only wait until the screams of his wife and children subside and after a few days (upon smelling the rotting stench), I may, with some trepidation, call the police (or perhaps a coroner would be more appropriate). Better yet, the neighbors in the surrounding area might take a vote, and decide if the police would be notified at all. After all, I wouldn’t want to summon the police and risk offending my surviving neighbors by doing so.

And if the murderers were also neighbors, it wouldn’t be politically correct, moral, or otherwise good to point them out to the police. After all, if I can’t point to the news link showing that they’re guilty, then I have no business accusing them of murder.

Rational thought and direct observation evidently have no currency among the Left.

John Kwon,
Nobody except you is generalizing that all American military interventions are evil. conversely, this does not imply that all American military interventions are holy and pure.

Even if Annan did not have the “authority” to authorize something, at least he could have said something - warned somebody - raised the issue.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. you haven’t presented any evidence either way. The article I linked to faults the U.N. and the international players (The U.S., France, Belgium) for having major hints of what was coming, and not doing enough to stop it. This is, unfortunately, a more plausible scenario than your Koffi-Annan-kept-the-lid-on-coming-massacre scenario.

Also, I suppose that to someone on the Left, it doesn’t matter if people are massacred - 800,000 is a paltry sum, and as long as no one can say “millions” it’s not an issue.

The issue is that you’re using bogus ’facts’ to make your point. I can’t imagine why you’d feel a need to exagerate this particular point, but you did.

The fact that you seem to be unwilling to admit error when caught making this exageration makes you an untrustworthy source of information. What other exagerations and lies are you trying to feed us ?

[…]the late great Saddam (who according to the Left was a great leader who never did anything significantly wrong in his entire life)

According to you, that is. But then, I’ve already established that you lie and exagerate to make rhetorical points.

Simon,
If the Washington Post believes that the CPA personnel in Iraq are universally harmful, well they have no axe to grind.

You obviously didn’t read the article.
Yes, I did. Your point is..?

So the Heritage Foundation (for which I detect some contempt from you) has recruited conservatives to go to Iraq.

My contempt is reserved for the civilian leadership of the Pentagon whose CPA staff selection process seems to have been ideological purity over competence or required skills.
You are assuming that many qualified young liberals were turned away so that the scions of the wealthy class could go to Iraq? Any proof?

I further believe that the actions in Iraq are a happy confluence of US interest (stabilization of the Middle East) with a truly humanitarian goal (the overthrow of an unstable, brutal, and exceptionally oppressive dictator and his fascist government).

Please notice that the Middle East is notably less stable and less friendly to U.S. interests than it was prior to this war.
And Europe was much less stable during WWII than before and the US was less stable during the Revolutionary war, etc etc. As to friendly to US interests, I would welcome evidence of such friendship: Saudi Arabia: sending murderous militants. Palestine: Cheering the deaths of Americans on Sept 11. Iran: ? Do I need to go any further?

Also notice that you are contradicting yourself:
I would point out that Iraq was quite stable, when it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Juan Cole seems to be completely wrong in his predictions of how Karbala and al-Sadr will play out, the Iraqis seem to be working these things out.

This is illogical; How can he be completely wrong about events that have yet to occur ?
Inasmuch as he has made predictions as to these events and their current status, those predictions are demonstrably wrong.

So stop complaining about what and who you hate, and start telling what and who you love, and what actions will benefit the greates number and why.

I personally prefer rational discussion to emotional discussion, if you don’t mind. This isn’t about love/hate for me.
What a delicatley snide comment! Ah yes, ad hominem, the last refuge of the incoherant. Don’t try to duck the point. What do you stand for, and how do you propose to get there. If you have no greater context, then every action you evaluate must stand alone. Yes, wasr is bad. Bad things happen. But they do so for a better reason. I have explained my better reasons. What are yours?

Simon,
>>>If the Washington Post believes that the CPA personnel in Iraq are universally harmful, well they have no axe to grind.

>>You obviously didn’t read the article.
>Yes, I did. Your point is..?

That the article said no such thing. That the CPA staffers themselves ackowledged that they were in over their heads.

>You are assuming that many qualified young liberals were turned away so that the scions of the wealthy class could go to Iraq? Any proof?

What I am assuming is that anyone submitting their resumes to a conservative institution like the Heritage Foundation would themselves be conservatives. Conservative and qualified would be fine, but there doesn’t seem to have been any filter for qualifications, and the results are obvious.

Moving on: You haven’t resolved the logical conflict between calling Iraq a stable totalitarian state under an unstable dictator.

I think that the opposite is probably closer to the truth, but that’s neither here nor there.

Otherwise besides Israel, The U.S.’s major allies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia is currently trying to reduce oil prices for us both by boosting their oil production and trying to get the rest of OPEC to boost theirs, just like Saudi Prince Bandar promised Bush.

Inasmuch as he [Juan Cole] has made predictions as to these events and their current status, those predictions are demonstrably wrong.

Quite an all-encompassing statement.
Cite specifics.

As to what I stand for:
I believed prior to the war, and still do,
(1) That the premises used to launch this war were bogus.
(2) that launching a pre-emptive war is contrary to american principles of justice.
(3) That the U.S. did not have resources to effectively take over Iraq (e.g. total troops, and Arabic speakers).
(4) That failure would be worse than doing nothing.

I now also believe
(5) our opportunity to establish democracy in Iraq is now completely squandered.

Patrick (although I think we may be the only 2 left on this thread)

I wish I could get italics to work. It makes your posts much easier to read.

Young people working in Iraq:

Unless you can show that qualified liberal applicants for these jobs were turned away, I am left with the conclusion that young conservatives were the only ones applying for these jobs. Since they are universally pretty bad jobs, in bad conditions, I really think we should all be thanking these people, not condemning them.

Stability of Iraq:

OK, you’ve lost me here. My argument is that change is by definition destabilizing. Absence of change is the definition of stability. There is no way that Iraq was going to change without some period of instability.

But lets get to your list (I have a fondness for lists).

1. I believe that the real reason for this war was to place a stable democracy in the Middle East “pour encourage les autre”, to encourage other countries to move away from corrupt, socially stagnant breeding grounds for disillusion and terrorism, usually condoned by the kleptocratic government as a means to distract the populace from the systemic theft and abuses of that government. I think that Bush et.al. jumped on whatever reason they thought would carry the day. But, let’s remember, Saddam Hussein was in violation of the many UN resolutions, as well as in violation of the terms of his cease fire after the First Gulf War (btw, that war was never actually ended, just a cease fire). Since my support was not predicated on whether Hussein had WMDs, I don’t really worry much about that issue. And it does seem that he had at least one sarin shell, so who knows?

2. If by pre-emptive you mean anything other than a response to a direct attack, well what are your views on Haiti 2, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti 1, Panama, Vietnam( I’m trying to be complete), Korea, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Morocco…you get my drift? Bush was quite clear when he said that we would no longer wait for an imminent threat, but would act earlier. This is a direct result of September 11. I am not maintaining that there was a direct link between Hussein and al’Quaeda, but I really don’t care. Hussein was a miserable SOB, he was killing thousands, he was defying (and bribing) the UN, and much more importantly, he was violating his cease fire with the US. He was actively supporting terrorism (payments to families of Palestinian terrorist bombers). So we got a chance to help ourselves, and at the same time remove a murderous enemy. I do not understand how this was a bad thing. No international law was broken, treaties were upheld, agreements were honored. The US has always tried to be a country that kept its word. Here we got a chance to warn, warn again, threaten, and finally, carry out our stated threat. You talk about credibility, well, hopefully next time we have to threaten, we will be believed, and will not have to use force.

3. Resources. Well, we did in fact take over Iraq. Rather quickly. Would we have liked more Arabic speakers? Sure. But we weren’t going to wait long enough to train them, and so we did without. We could engage in endless games of “what if” but the fact is that Iraq is stabilising, Falluja has quieted down, the Shi’ite mullahs (al-Sistani and the rest) have come out strongly against al-Sadr, whose militia is being worn down without replenishment. Of the three cities that he had some control over, he has been reduced to occupation of holy sites in Karbala. And that does not make the Shi’ites happy, either. There is no civil war brewing. Is there still violence? Yes, but the US and Iraqis are reducing it.

4. Failure worse than nothing. Hmm, well, I’ll start by saying that we are not going to fail. But I’m sure you want more. We have had great successes with the underlying reason for this war. Would you like to give Qaddafi back his nukes? (BTW, weapons inspectors do that: Inspect a country’s disarmament. They aren’t detectives, looking across a whole country without the co-operation of the government). Even the Arab League is making noises about liberalization, rights of women, and reining in the extremists. These are good events that are a direct result of the war in Iraq. You think we are losing. I disagree, but more importantly I say we will not lose. (btw, last year saw very little terrorist activity, especially in the US. Do you truly think that terrorists no longer want to act within the US? Kill Americans? Westerners? They are only killing other Muslims.)

5. Establishing democracy in Iraq. I’m not one to use web links, but I’m getting tired of typing. I’ll try for a source that is not in any way pre-Bush or pro-US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185792,00.html

So it seems that democracy is taking hold. I have no desire that Iraq turn into a US puppet. I just care that they are not used by some dictator to cause trouble for us in the future. Hell, they can keep all their oil if they want. /joke/ If we really need to steal some, well there are closer countries /joke/.

This is a war. Not every day is a good day. But the result has to be. Years from now, I truly believe that we will look back upon this time and say that when this insane form of fundamentalist, fascist, anti-Humanity terrorism started to take firm hold on the Arab world, we acted to stop it. Hitler was a threat we removed, as was Milosovic. We stood against the Soviet state, who also did a much better job of killing its own citizens then we could ever dream. You ask why I support this war? Its because I am a Liberal. I believe in freedom, I believe in basic human rights, I believe that representative governments are much less likely to enslave their neighbors. I believe that people who want to get married should be praised and supported. I believe in a free press. I also believe that there are people who wish to destroy these instituions and kill every American.
And I believe that it is the job of the President to stop those people. And I really think that is what we are doing.

Ok, I’ll play. This one is from the Independent (UK). It’s a classic example of a UN “peacekeeping” operation - note that “peacekeeping” does not mean exactly what you think it should mean.

Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.

The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers.

Testimony from girls and aid workers in the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp in Bunia, in the north-east corner of Congo, claims that every night teenage girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining UN compound to sell their bodies to Moroccan and Uruguayan soldiers.

John Kwon,
that article snippet (Link ? Date published?) is only tangentially related at best to your charge against Kofi Annan being morally degenerate.

Simon,

Re: Young people working in Iraq:
I think you’re being obtuse on this issue.

1.Ledeen’s journey to Baghdad began two weeks earlier when she received an e-mail out of the blue from the Pentagon’s White House liaison office. The Sept. 16 message informed her that the occupation government in Iraq needed employees
2. For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank.
3. They were supposed to be experts, but many of the younger hires who filled the CPA’s hallways were longer on enthusiasm than on expertise.

If you read his archives, Col Lounsbury has some choice words for these supposed-to-be-experts.

Re: Stability in Iraq prior to invasion.
You’ve said Iraq was stable under Hussein, and that Hussein himself was an unstable dictator. Which does not logically follow.
I think it’s fairer to say that Hussein was balancing a large number of forces that would have otherwise torn the country apart.

As to your attempted rebuttals of my points.
1. I think that Bush et.al. jumped on whatever reason they thought would carry the day
By which you confirm that you are in agreement with my point that the reasons given for this war were bogus.

2. Bush was quite clear when he said that we would no longer wait for an imminent threat, but would act earlier. There was no threat to the U.S., imminent or otherwise. Invading another country without the Security Council’s approval is a violation of the U.N. Charter, of which we are a signatory. This was indeed a violation of American principles.

3. Well, we did in fact take over Iraq. Rather quickly. We toppled Saddam’s regime rather quickly, However we demonstrated that we did not have control of Iraq as early as April 2003, when we failed to stop the looting. We still don’t have control of Iraq. Sadr’s base isn’t in the South, it’s in the Bagdhad slum now known as Sadr City. Which, I seem to recall, we don’t dare patrol anymore.

4. Failure worse than nothing. Hmm, well, I’ll start by saying that we are not going to fail. That’s a declaration of faith on your part. It’s deluded thinking, from my perspective. Strategic planning would require examining all of the worst case scenarios and ensuring that we do the utmost to avoid falling into those traps. Unfortunately, our Commander in Chief is not a strategic thinker.

5. One local election does not make a democratic state. I see no evidence of democracy taking hold at the national level.

Patrick,

How do you get the italics? I’m just going to use the numbered points, without cut and paste.

As to the young workers: What was the alternative? Where were all the qualified, liberal candidates? You make a point that these people are incompetant, yet what was the alternative?

1. No, the reasons given were not “bogus”. Three reasons were given: WMD as a threat to the US and world, Liberation of the Iraqi people, and long term stabilization of the ME by the introduction of a democratic Iraq. Every country in the world believed in the existence of the WMD, and the recent sarin shell has to give you pause. Because, in fact, it is a chemical weapon found in Iraq. QED. Liberation of the Iraqi people has occured. If you want to argue that, leave me out. Ask the Iraqis. Long term stabilization of the ME, which I believe was and is the most important reason, well we have seen some results (Libya) but we will know in the long term.

2. We did not violate the UN charter for 2 very clear legal reasons: First, this was a continuation of the actions taken in the First Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of cease fire, thereby terminating the cease fire. Secondly, Hussein was in violation of 14 seperate UN resolutions relating to disarmament. Now these two items are not matters of opinion, but matters of fact. The US invasion of Iraq was not illegal but sanctioned by the UN in 1991. There is no room for discussion here.

3. What looting? Saddam’s palaces? Hell, I would have let the Iraqis carry off everything. They paid for it. We control the vast majority of Iraq. al-Sadr may be from Sadr city in Baghdah, but he is currently (and has been) holed up in a Shi’ite mosque in Najaf. There is violence in Sadr City, a slum area, but, to quote today’s New York Times:

In the Sadr City neighborhood in Baghdad, rebels using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fought with American troops, and an American military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said “a very large number” of rebels were killed in both places.

BTW, no CPA casualties. Thats not just patrolling, but very effective patrolling.

Let’s see..
4. “Strategic planning would require examining all of the worst case scenarios and ensuring that we do the utmost to avoid falling into those traps.”

Interesting. That is what is referred to as “planning for defeat” or “planning for inaction”. A good strategic plan is not one that minimizes damage, but one that achieves the goals in the best way. Planning is never a case of avoiding trouble, but of meeting it on advantageous terms.
Start with the assumption that we will win, and design your plan to that. No one ever starts a plan with things that cannot be done. I’m sure you don’t believe me, so just ask any military officers you may know. Its pretty basic stuff for them.

5. We have not had national elections, so obviously democracy has not taken hold at a national level. Where elections have been held, the results have been effective, peaceful, and representative of the electorate. What experiance we have with democracy in Iraq has been overwhelmingly positive. From where do you draw your conclusions otherwise?

To sum up, Patrick, if you are looking for bad news, there is plenty out there. Its a war, and war is ugly. I am not going to convince you otherwise, and frankly, I don’t really care. These exchanges have served a purpose for me, namely, helping to clarify my feelings on these issues. You may remain on the sidelines, criticizing, sniping, bemoaning the current state of affairs. I don’t care. I, and people who agree with me, will continue to support these actions that are bringing, and will continue to bring, freedom and life to so many people. I am sure there will be many opportunities along the way for you to express your schadenfreude.

Simon,
You are a font of disinformation. But one comment stands out for me:

What looting?

The Burning of the Iraqi National archives, for one, which contained priceless, irreplaceable historical documents.
Even Hospitals were looted.
And all Iraqi ministries, save the Oil Ministry. which was the only one protected by American forces.

This was front page news in the U.S.

And you ask: What looting ?

Do you truly wish to paint yourself the equivalent of a Holocaust-denier ?