In addition to being a valuable opportunity for the western world to revisit important enlightenment concepts like religious tolerance and the importance of secular government, the re-election of President Bush could also lead to a more effective transatlantic division of diplomatic labour in the Middle East outside Iraq, as – possibly – indicated by this weekend’s sort-of-agreement between the EU Troika (UK, France, Germany) and Iran, in which the latter pledged to freeze its uranium enrichment programme until a longterm agreement has been reached (see the Guardian).
I have always believed that a good cop, bad cop strategy, with the very credibly threat of a loose US cannon could have worked on Iraq, too. But once the Bush administration had committed so many troops to the idea of violent regime change, it simply had no political exit strategy.
Now, in the middle of a guerilla warfare and a rising death toll, the reelection of President Bush is in itself sufficient evidence of the continued American determination to remain a loose cannon country – on some level, the vote thus is a price efficient credible threat. But of course, evidence of an overstretched US military will not have gone unnoticed in the area. So there is a certain probability that the US administration may not necessariy opt for a military solution when there are other options available.
Suddenly, it seems, talking to the European good cop has become a lot more attractive. We’ll see if it really works.
Can the European trio make solid pretenses to ward off the USA in case Iran agrees? Or will that be another Tchecoslovachia?
DSW
Can the European trio make solid pretenses to ward off the USA in case Iran agrees?
The USA is overstretched in Iraq right now, so any attack on Irean would be in the form of air strikes. If Europe sold Iran advanced surface-to-air missiles as part of a deal, it would decrease the threat of US aggression. If would decrease the possibility of Israeli aggression even more so, because Israel doesn’t have stealth aircraft like the USA.
However, because of Iran’s failure to hold democratic elections earlier this year, I don’t think Europe should be selling Iran any advanced weaponry, or throwing them a lifebelt in any other way. And Europe should make it publicly known that this is the reason, to encourage other states in the region (and worldwide) to improve their record on democracy and human rights.
Good cop/bad cop might be an apt analogy, but I’m pretty sure loose cannon isn’t. I can think of five European countries off the top of my head that sent significant troops to Iraq with the U.S., refuting both the idea that the U.S acted alone and that Europeans monolithically opposed action in Iraq.
I’m less hopeful than you are that this solution will work. I don’t believe Iran will keep it’s word.
from http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA18104
[quote]
In response to increasing international pressure on Iran on the matter
of its nuclear program, two major approaches are emerging in the Iranian
media regarding the question of how to repel the Western threat to
Iran’s nuclear activities.
[/quote]
Plan A: Semi-open war against the U.S. and Europe
[quote]
A growing number of reports about the recruitment and training
of thousands of Iranian volunteers by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards for
suicide attacks against Western, European, and U.S. targets in Iraq,
and their dispatch to Iraq. [2] (See Appendix I)
Reports on the resumption of Iran’s project for long-range Shihab 4
and Shihab 5 missiles, by order of Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei — with
Europe and the U.S. as its strategic targets. [3]
Statements by senior Revolutionary Guards officials about the existence
of a plan to eliminate Anglo-Saxon civilization using missiles and
suicide bombers against “29 sensitive targets” in the West, which have
already been identified by Iranian intelligence. [4]
Statements by conservative papers calling on Iran to quit the NPT
[Non-Proliferation Treaty], and not to ratify the Additional Protocol. [5]
[/quote]
Plan B: deniable developement of nuclear weapons, possible war with
the U.S., no war with europe
[quote]
…negotiating with Britain, France, and Germany to have the Iranian
dossier removed from the global agenda; during this time, they were
apparently promised by these European powers that the dossier would be
closed in exchange for an Iranian commitment to halt nuclear activities
and to cooperate fully and transparently with the IAEA. [6]
[/quote]
[quote]
…the reformists criticized the conservatives for their recent recruitment
of volunteers for suicide attacks on Western targets. The reformists
explained their opposition to the institutionalization of such mass
recruitment by stating that harming Europeans jeopardizes Iran’s national
interests at a time when Iran needs Europe’s support to stand against
the U.S. The reformists do not, however, object to suicide operations
against Western targets, provided that they are carried out by individuals
on their own initiative. [8]
[/quote]
Supporting quotes for plan A
[quote]
An announcement of the resumption of the long-range Shihab 4 and Shihab 5
missile program, by order of Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei. According to
a military source in the Iranian Ministry of Defense, “in a meeting last week
with Revolutionary Guards commanders, Khamenei said that Israel was planning
to attack Iran’s nuclear installations and the Iranian military soon, and
therefore defense and military preparedness should be boosted as soon as
possible. Khamenei stressed that the increase in petroleum prices allowed
Iran to allocate a larger budget to its military projects. [Iran’s] Ministry
of Defense received $1 billion to resume its Shihab 4 and Shihab 5 project.
It is known that in the past, Iran conducted an experiment with Shihab 3
missiles whose range is 1,200 kilometers [and which can reach Israel], but
[President] Khatami halted the project of the Shihab 4, whose range is 2,800
[which covers Western Europe], and the Shihab 5, whose range is 4,900-5,300 km
[and which can reach the U.S.], because he thought it was a project
incompatible with Iran’s strategic interests and defense needs.” [11]
[/quote]
[quote]
Statements by Dr. Hassan Abasi, theoretician of Revolutionary Guards intelligence,
head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National
Security Outside Iran’s Borders, and political expert for the Iranian broadcasting
authority, who told a secret meeting of Ansar-e Hizbullah activists about
Iran’s “locating and spying on 29 sensitive sites in the West, with the aim of
bombing them… Our intention is that 6,000 U.S. nuclear warheads will explode
in [the U.S.]. We have located the [29] weak points and we have transferred the
information about them to the guerilla organizations, and we are acting through
them.” Abasi added, “We have established a department for Britain as well, and
the discussion about bringing about its collapse is on our agenda. We are also
operating among the Mexicans, the Argentineans, and all those with a problem
with the U.S.” [12] According to another report, Abasi said, “We defend [the
line of] violence and war against the enemies of revolutionary Islam. I take
pride in my actions that cause anxiety and fear among the Americans… We have
a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the
uprooting of the Americans and the English. Our missiles are now ready to strike
at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader
[Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations.
Our motto during the war in Iraq was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are
coming. And because of Khatami’s policies and his ‘dialogue among civilizations,’
we have been compelled to freeze our plan… And now we are [again] about to
carry out the program… The global infidel front is a front against Allah and
the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at
this front, by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.” [13]
[/quote]
from from http://www.sundayherald.com/38834
“Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi took the decision to renounce all weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) on Friday night, but while at first it was thought
this only had implications for Libya it is now clear that his decision has
scuppered a secret partnership between Libya, Iran and North Korea formed
with the intention of developing an independent nuclear weapon.
“New documents revealed yesterday show that the three were working on the
nuclear weapons programme at a top-secret underground site near the Kufra
Oasis of the Sahara in southeastern Libya. The team was made up of North
Korean scientists, engineers and technicians, as well as some Iranian and
Libyan nuclear scientists.
“North Korea and Iran, originally dubbed by Bush as the axis of evil along
with Iraq, avoided detection by the International Atomic Energy Agency?s
(IAEA) inspectors by each member farming out vital sections of its projects
to its fellow members.
“Iran, which is now in the final stages of uranium enrichment for its program,
is badly hit, having counted on fitting into place key parts of its WMD project
made in Libya. North Korea may also be forced to scale back the production
of nuclear devices as well as counting the loss of a lucrative source of
income for its Scuds and nuclear technology.”
Is America a loose canon. Uhm, yes
Boy, MEMRI is outdoing itself.
I think the bad cop, good cop plan makes perfect sense. Plunging into Iraq is likely to remain the most headlong action of the US in a long time to come, but at least now we’ve earned our credentials. There’s been a lot of talk in European press lately about closing ranks against the evil heathen Christians across the Atlantic, but unless nearly every European country undergoes a lurch to the left, Europe will continue be united by philosophical contrasts to the US rather than a shared policy to oppose it. The good cop role fits this well, and I do think Europe has an indispensible role to play in the world.
Can the European trio make solid pretenses to ward off the USA in case Iran agrees? Or will that be another Tchecoslovachia?
Wrong game. That would be cops and robbers, I think.
“Destroy Anglo-Saxon civilisation” by attacking 29 targets (with what exactly?). You couldn’t achieve that with 29 H-bombs. Grow up, troll.
@Alex
I really don’t like your reaction “Grow up, troll” towards Mark quoting ! a translation of Iran sources at MEMRI.
I am glad he draws attention to the MEMRI-site.
His link had rotten unfortunately but I found the present location of the most important of his links, it’s in their archives now: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA18104
(Read their about-us, too.)
The most alarming part of the linked article to me is not the ?Destroy Anglo-Saxon civilisation? by attacking 29 targets part nor the recruitment and training of thousands of Iranian volunteers by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards for suicide attacks against Western, European, and U.S. targets in Iraq, and their dispatch to Iraq part.
No it?s the “As of now, occupied Palestine, Salman Rushdie, and the U.S. occupation forces [in Iraq] are our targets, and this is true also regarding occupiers in the other Muslim countries? The martyrdom will begin only at the order of [Iranian] Leader [Ali Khamenei].”. My emphasis. It is alarming because of the Islamo-fascists at least claiming to be very close to Khamenei.
As you know the Netherlands have now been hit by what could seriously be considered a next stage in terrorism. (not my point of view, btw) We should not panic, we should not react as if this is war (it?s murder by walking time-bombs, see my posts on the subject http://www.fransgroenendijk.nl/reactieding.php?id=P433_0_1_0) but we most certainly should not go into wishful thinking or closing eyes for facts that are too alarming.
The chance that the US can invade Iran and win is about 0% and everybody but the Americans seem to realise it. Do you really believe the Iranians will welcome you after what you did to Iraq?
Yes, but the reference is an unnamed single source provided by a site whose “special despatches” include masterpieces of prediction such as “Terror Attack that will kill 100,000 Americans imminent” (this in autumn, 2003). The alleged remarks include a variety of statements that simply cannot be right – Iran does not have the missile capability referred to, and I should think I’d notice thousands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards swarming in on Heathrow Airport. There are statements that are right, and there are statements that may be right with varying degrees of probability. There are also statements that cannot be right, and this of missiles is one of them.
Our friend has indulged in extremely selective quoting – the 50% or so of the article that refers to Iranian reformist sources or indeed to more authoritative sources is not mentioned, nor is any health-warning given that this is so. Statements by “conservative papers” should not necessarily be seen as an infallible guide to policy. Imagine, if you will, reading an Iranian intelligence assessment based purely on editorials in the Washington Times, the Sun, and the Weekly Standard, as well as assertions that (for example) the US disposed of supersonic hovercraft as heavily armoured as tanks.
What this “despatch” reminds me of most of all is the long-since debunked British Government dossier on “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Much of it rests either on assertion, on opinion editorials of unknown value, or on unsourced “intelligence”. Aspirations are presented as if they were real, existing rockets and bombs. It comes as no great surprise that the various testimonials on their site come from prominent neo-conservative boosters such as Podhoretz, Krauthammer and the Weekly Standard, Fox News, the National Review and former CIA director James Woolsey. We should certainly not close our eyes to facts. Closing our eyes to facts and preferring half-baked and partisan “intelligence” got us into Iraq.
Alex, Alex, Alex, may I count the ways you are wrong.
“unnamed single source” — The hyperlink I provided
was to a real document even if the link was dead, Frans
Groenendijk found the correct link proving that. The
quotes I excerpted are largly quotes from Iranian sources.
Each is footnoted and if you go to the original document
you can see that exactly where each quote comes from.
The sources are in fact multiple.
“a site whose “special despatches” include” — So if
I read an article from the “Guardian” that means I’m
obligated to read every article the “Guardian” has ever
written and reject the particular article I’m interested
in if one or more these others was wrong? Really?!!
“The alleged remarks include a variety of statements that
simply cannot be right – Iran does not have the missile
capability referred to, …” — I actually have no personal
knowledge of whether Iran has developed or is trying to
develop a missle capacity. Mind I would consider it
surpassingly strange if they weren’t trying to do something
considering the numbers of states around the world that
have developed such things or are known to have tried. Such
as Iran’s next door neighbors Pakistan and Iraq. Please
elaborate on why you consider this to be obviously false.
“…and I should think I’d notice thousands of Iranian
Revolutionary Guards swarming in on Heathrow Airport.” —
I don’t see how this follows. I don’t see why if Iran
were trying to develop long-range missles (note that
word ‘trying’; it’s all the quotes allege) that this
would mean you would have seen the revolutionary guard
invading Heathrow.
“There are statements that are right, and there are
statements that may be right with varying degrees of
probability. There are also statements that cannot be
right, and this of missiles is one of them.” — It might
be worthwhile to talk about which particular statements
are right and wrong.
“Our friend has indulged in extremely selective quoting…” —
The article is in fact quite long. It’s confusing and
covers quite a range of subjects and is in fact difficult to
absorb all at one sitting. The pieces that I quoted
were what I thought to be of most interest. “Selective
quoting” implies that I have have misrepresented what
the article as a whole says. I have done no such thing.
“…the 50% or so of the article that refers to Iranian
reformist sources or indeed to more authoritative sources
is not mentioned” — actually it is briefly. That’s the
part under “Plan B.” The fact that you’re making this
complaint means that you found the article worthwhile
reading and credible (at least in part) once you’d read
it, despite it coming from MEMRI.
“Statements by “conservative papers” should not necessarily
be seen as an infallible guide to policy.” — Yes, of
course. Who do you think should be taken as an infallible
guide?
Don’t read MEMRI. It’s unreliable, and it is propaganda. Simple as that. You choose to promote it, you choose their side, and you’re lost for normal debate.
The link given in the MEMRI article points to – hey! – another MEMRI article, which sources it to an unnamed source at a “secret meeting”. It also seems to be at least the second time they have reported it for some reason. Granted the newspaper quotes are sourced (with the exception of one of the more alarmist, whose link is dead).
But these are op-ed not factual. I wonder what the Iranians made of Ann Coulter’s rant about “conquering their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity”?
I chose the example I did because it was an especially egregious howler. I could have selected others. A visit to their Iraq section will be instructive. Here are pieces boosting neocon fantasies about restoring the Hashemite Kingdom in Iraq. Here are statements that Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction, sourced of course to nameless “officials”. Here are headlines like “Arab Nationalists’ Interference in Iraqi Affairs will pound the final nail into Iraq’s Coffin”. What’s not to love?
I consider the missile claim to be obviously false for a couple of reasons – for a start, even in the MEMRI text Khamenei is quoted (quoted!) as saying that the Shihab-4 project was not in Iran’s strategic interests. If it is a fact that he now wishes the project reopened, does this suggest a grand conspiracy or a concern for security? Surely if he really had a “plan to destroy Anglo-Saxon civilisation” he would have kept going anyway? Further, according to Globalsecurity.org, “there are few indications that it[the Shihab 5] is in fact an active development programme”. So no rockets, no rocket motors, no flight tests, no test beds, no blueprints – nothing. Why MEMRI didn’t think to mention yet another engineering pipedream, the 10,000kms range Shihab 6 for whose existence there is no evidence at all, is obscure. Certainly, it might be in Iran’s interest to acquire further missile capability, but that is not a rocket.
The crack about Revolutionary Guards invading Heathrow refers, obviously enough, to the “thousands of volunteers”. How many? For 29 targets? This, like the rocket-waving, simply is not credible. And what about the “6,000 nuclear warheads”? Which ones? How? Sorry, not credible.
The concept of “Plan B” appears to be entirely tendentious and not based on any of the “reformists” quoted. We might quote, for example, Dr. Salehi, former IAEA representative and adviser to the National Security Council:”? A country like Iran cannot have prestige by acquiring nuclear weapons? Iran would raise more threats against it, not obtain security, by having nuclear weapons?” Terrifying, eh. In fact, even MEMRI’s analysis obviously wasn’t macho enough:
“The first approach espoused by Iran’s conservatives, and particularly by the Revolutionary Guards and circles close to Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei, is militant and aggressive, and openly threatens European and U.S. targets and interests, both in the Middle East and in the West. The second approach, espoused by Iran’s reformist circles, is more moderate, emphasizing diplomatic channels, and opposes threatening the Europeans. However, for all their differences, both camps agree on Iran’s need for an advanced nuclear program.”
Plan A – semiopen war, Plan B – possible war with the US? Eh?
Speaking of Iranian missles hears a report from Agence France-Presse:
[quote]
Iran is capable of mass-producing the Shahab-3, a ballistic
missile capable of hitting Israel, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani
said Tuesday.
“We are presently able to mass-produce the Shahab-3, just like
we do with the Paykan,” the minister was quoted as saying by
the student news agency ISNA.
The Paykan is Iran’s ubiquitous national car which has been
mass-produced in the country for decades.
“We have mastered the technology and we have no limits on the
volume of the production,” Shamkhani was also quoted as saying
by state television.
“My task consists of developing defence capabilities, and
we have passed our objecctives,” the rear admiral added.
Iran has recently upgraded the Shahab-3 ballistic missile –
believed to be based on a North Korean design – and some
officials have said it now has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres
(about 1,200 miles).
[/quote]
from http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-04zzu.html
Now to be frank sometimes reports from the AFP are unreliable
and sometimes they are propaganda; I keep that in mind,
but it doesn’t mean I reject them out of hand.
Assuming AFP didn’t make this up, I hope you’ll note
that the Shahab-3 now has a range of “at least” 2,000 kilometers,
800 kilometers greater than the older version of the
Shahab-3. Now here’s a question: Is the new Shahab-3
really an improved version of the Shahab-3 or is it the
Shahab-4? And how, pray tell, would one tell the difference?
Quoting MEMRI is like quoting any other “news” source, like the BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, The NY Times, etc.
All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt. The facts can be gleaned by comparing them to other news sources, and seeing where the descriptive language is ideologically inclined.
Thanks to blogs, this has become easier.
There are quite a few Iranians who did and will say, “death to America”, and put their lives on the line to do so. But their real end is: everlasting life; meaning to a meaningless life; and financial reward and esteem for their families. This is a promise LEADERS give them. No argument, right?
The Iranian embassy in Ottawa-Canada, just after the ascension of Khomeni (is this spelled incorrectly?) displayed graphic horror pictures of dead americans and awful slogans in their main entrance lobby which constituted the main part of their embassy. The embassy was essentially manned by fatigued, poorly dressed people who obviously were unqualified workers, friends of the new regime. Students drifted in and out and the embassy was very dirty. These bums did not waste their money on cleaners.
Good Cop – Bad Cop?
Yes, Bush is not a good president. Would the american president have gained popular support in america for a war where the aim was to get rid of Saddam; at the cost of a few thousand american lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, poor international relations and being a lightening rod for Islamic hatred, while Iraq itself morphed back to its paternal and tribal ways, where the leaders acted for : mainly personal interests; secondarly tribal intersts; lastly, no other reasons?? I am sure NOT.
The mess now in Iraq is predictable. 1. Foreign idiots/crusaders flock in 2. Tribal Leaders expecting to enhance their position, act against other tribal leaders AND are reckless, with the upcoming vaccuum created with the loss of Saddam and the expected departure of american troops 3. Adventurers, crazies, powerful-including those who left the company long ago make a play for power now, they have no chance when the main Iraqi groups move with the departure of american strength 4.Neighbors act like vultures, hoping to influence Iraq and enhance their country, and they use America as a scape goat to draw attention from their own dictatorial and undemocratic ways.. 5. The UN and three European countries ‘on the take’ basically support chaos and pressure US at every instance, therby encouraging all the crazy elements in Iraq to hang in – because when the americans leave, and the elements enjoy their fight real fight for power,… the UN and glorious Germany, France and Russia can March in and with their great knowledge and empathy deal these crazies ..and edge the bad americans out. ISN”T HAPPENING THIS WAY The good cop is a really bad cop, always on the take .. and the crazies know this too.
Best way to deal with Iran or Iraq is to REWARD CIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR, PUNISH UNCIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR UNENDINGLY (war is not necessarily what I mean by punish).
But there were and are no good cops in this, the world’s nations and organizations all acted in self interest …
EXCEPT the troops from around the world (excluding the few criminals among them), the UN workers and humanitarians who went over to Iraq to do what they do, and the individual heros in Iraq whose stories we do not know yet, but these Iraqi policemen, politicians, and oil line workers should all be given medals.
Best way to deal with Iran or Iraq is to REWARD CIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR, PUNISH UNCIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR UNENDINGLY
And, you feel competent deciding which is which?
I do feel competent. I can assure you that I I could not walk up to three babies and a policeman, and blow them up, for the sake of a small minority, or some paternal tribe leader, or some blind hatred towards something someone told me about.
In fact, I believe even Chirac or Bush would have trouble letting go of the bomb. How about you?
In fact, I believe even Chirac or Bush would have trouble letting go of the bomb. How about you?
Me? I think Khomeini would have problems letting go the bomb, too.
‘S a funny thing, civilized behaviour. Bombing three children is uncivilized. And, I agree wholeheartedly. But dropping a precision guided bomb on a known safe-house, knowing full well that the two bars and six apartments immediately adjacent will have more than three children in, is, well, somehow, civilized.
One group went further than your example, not only did they kill civilians and policemen, but kidnapped and publicly tortured to death members of the UN peacekeeping forces. Civilization gave them their own state. Today, they have just been caught out whitewashing the murder of a ten-year-old girl, not even another statistic – we don’t count the uncivilized – until some ordinary soldiers decided they could keep quiet no longer. They are the really brave.
And, more torture in Iraq. Civilization is content to say that teenage conscriptss are to blame. The generals and their civilian masters share no responsibility in this grotesque charade. What do we expect? It was not long ago that the same army was caught red-handed massacring over 500 civilians at Mai Lai and, of the twelve perpetrators, eleven went free and one spent one month in prison and returned home to a triomphe fit for Pompeii. The only person punished was the poor officer that stopped the slaughter by ordering his men to raise their weapons againt their fellow countrymen.
And, in Europe we have an equally triomphant civilization enforcing democracy in the Ukraine. Hands up those that truely believe that civilization would have even noticed a corrupt election had the winner been the pro-western candidate.
And, in Italy we have people raiding supermarkets with immunity because they were profiteering anyway.
And… What’s the point? I’m still on the front page of today’s newspaper.
Craig, to answer your question in full: no, I don’t believe I’m competent to tell civilized behaviour from uncivilized behaviour. I also think you are mistaken if you think you can.
Michael.
I realize that an inferior force in combat is disiclined to play by the rules that a larger force would like them to play by: and the mightier force always ‘takes the high ground’ when the weaker force by necessity hides itself and fights differently than larger armies do ….
Yet, it seems certain that a lot of the radical elements in Iraq have narrow and personal reasons why they fight. They are NOT really concerned about the interests of the people and places they imbed themselves among, and certainly not about the greater good of Iraq or the interests of people with important differences such as religion, ethnicity or even class.
And when they bring horror around them, it is quite easy to say that they are the “bad guy”. Who were those scowling tradesmen at the girls’ school? What great ethical gounding do they have to take such obviously outrageous and hurtful behaviour to innocents? They were not fighting anyone.
Most of the terrorists’ damage to innocents cannot be described as collateral damage-but as targeted. They reside in mosques, schools, and homes!!!! And they shoot at these same targets to forment disorder.
And, I do believe that the majority of Iraqi people are fed up with the Saddam and terrorist types, and want more than anything else a stable government that promotes health, economics and peace.
It is quite clear that the present situation in Iraq would more likely evolve into a desirable state if a vote were held (I personnlay believe that delaying the vote is not an option- it would lead to increased terroism), if the UN got seriously involved, if trading nations came- including Saddam’s old allies, and were supportive of the national government – as long as the government did not turn against significant healthy sectors of the population.
A popular war by the Sunni would create a completely different situation not considered here. All bets off, then.
Since these comments are a collection of ideas and “opinions”, I guess we all rate ourselves capable of weighing issues.
You are right, it is very difficult to measure complex actions and reactions, taken by multi-faceted organizations such as a state.
Weighing the finer points of what is civilized, especially in respect to a muli-faceted country that is not my own, is not an area one, including myself, could weigh into and effectively convince others.
I do think the countries of the world should be able to help Iraq at this time … and be able to weigh somewhat accurately the actions of large viable groups in Iraq that seem likely to support economic growth in a peaceful and relatively healthful way….
But, if America, Europe and Egypt/Syria/Turkey tug and pull on Iraq in different ways, Iraq which is being dirupted by its neighbors, will truly be difficult to help …and it NEEDS help!
If the strong nations of the world would act together, and quit squabling, perhaps everyone could more easily differentiate between the truly horrible and the truly good.
An Iraqi government that represented the Shiite and gave effective representation and power suitable to protect the interests of the Kurds, Sunni, and women .. and stove for economic growth, and stability, would clearly deserve support… and be deemed civilized, for a time anyway, given the present conditions..
I’m not sure how we got from Iran to Iraq. Apart from going west, that is.
I agree that the trouble generators in Iraq do not have the best for the Iraqi people in mind. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that “civilization”, in this case represented by the US, has it either. To me, the rhetoric I hear every day rings very hollow. Those forcing western ideas and norms on Iraq in the name of freeing it are, in their own “civilized” way, simply projecting their own culture. You mention protecting women, and freeing a half a population from subjugation certainly sounds great in the television chat shows, but who has asked the women what they want? I’m not suggesting that forcing women into second class status or anything is in anyway good; but, if life was to change for the women of Iraq or any other population, how would those affected like it to change? The question is never even raised. It is assumed that any change to the status quo is a move to “civilized”, i.e. American, values.
I cannot understand the collateral damage argument either. If someone says: “I’m going to kill as many civilians as I can to help achieve my political ends” then we have terrorism. However, the civilized say: “We are going to try to kill some targets to help achieve our political ends, and we are well aware that many innocents will die because of our actions.” Personally, I find it extremely difficult to see the difference. I simply see two different factions that are so convinced of their own righteousness that they don’t care who they kill to further their aims. The innocents are just as dead.
LET THERE BE NO DOUBT MICHAEL, IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT UNDERSTOOD .. THAT I WOULD AGREE TO THIS STATEMENT EMPHATICALLY, “THIS WAR OBVIOUSLY WAS PURSUED COMPLETELY IN THE WRONG WAY”.
YES, it does take great knowledge to remake anohter country, a country contrived by Britain from three very different groups, with borders that were incorrect, and with hostile neighbors in every direction.i It takes an excess of morality, a ton of altruism, to engage your nation in war for such a cause, and to take it upon one’s self to war, surly kill innocents that you or your enemy will find in the wrong spot.
_________________________________________________
The USA is caught in a trap right now. It does not want to be part of a broader civil war ..
It does not want Iraq to splinter or worse, ultimately become a vassal of Iran and part of a rather unfriendly regional block, and bring upon itself an angry Arab world for losing this Arab nation to Iran…
and it really doesn’t want to just leave the area-a mess ..bringing nothing but rebuke and the perception of weakness..
Bush is simply not the man for this kind of work. From the beginning, he was not fully capable of appreciation the stubborn and entrenched nature of tribalism, that the rights of women and other institutions would be different for Iraqis, that the average Iraqi who might be a potential friend of the USA would not have the means or will to fight, that mistakes in implementing measures often would make things worse for everyone, and that by not ensuring “order” the USA government grievously abdicated its duty to the american people and its friends in Iraq (is not the new stated reason for being their to make this place better)…. of course, the initiially stated goal was to save the world or america from the potential harm Saddam and Iraq could pose, partly because the UN was not carrying out its responsibilities and WMD was all over Iraq.
The initial reason was wrong. The present reasoning could never have sold the american citizenry. And what will happen is anyone’s guess.
MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE!! But the American nation really is bearing a heavy burden right now-with little taste in the rest of world for altruism with respect to Iraq.
_____________________________________________
I think the USA has lost control. Their huge expenditure of political capital and effort, of money, of american lives, has at best lead to a possibility of a better state in Iraq that could ultimately effect the region. But moderate-educated Arabs are being treated to a spectacle of great brutality that is close to home..you know, Arabs are absolutely brutal among themselves…really! You wonder if any other country in the region would have have the stomach for this kind of battle..
I think that the Shiite majority are going to bolt from the USA, and are letting the americans do all their fighting so they can gain power…and I think the Sunni are battling against what they think is going to happen, and the americans are more worried about an exit strategy…but I wonder if this carnival might not be saving its greatest twists and surprises for the end (what end?)… my guess, the Americans will have to swing to help the Sunni if they ultimately want a country called Iraq to be somewhat friendly…. Americans really ought to be engaging the Sunni directly, not trusting in the Shiite to make all the deals, as with Sadr in Najf….the Americans may get a nasty surprise…
the main stream groups in Iraq are just laying on the sidelines, using the Americans to rebuild and kill enemies. The americans gain little credit, certainly not enough to worry any tricks a main party or group might have up its sleeve to turn the country in a “different” direction.
_____________________________________________
There is very little civilized behaviour in Iraq…everyone is angling for something better than they have now, for themselves.
Iraq needs help. Who will give it? Who is altruistic or in a giving mood?
_________________________________________________
Not the Iraqi people, not the neighbors, not Europe, WHERE IS THE UN?
I want to make a point about the UN and the position america now finds it in. I am opening myself up here to a strong reply , but hey, people are welcome to have a go at this…
African countries, Arab countries, European countries, and many other blocks exist..the powerful US that pays about 20% of the bills for the UN has one (1) vote. You might include Canada, Britain, Australia and Mexico in this block, some from those countries would yell NO. All have a large group of citizens who have unnatural reactions, bordering on paranoi, to a few attributes of americans, such as flag waving, that probably exists in their own country, but is expressed differently-ever see Candians travelling with their little Canadian flags, basically “asking” everyone to tell them how much they are loved, partly for not being American. How nauseating to me, a Canadian who realizes we ARE americans too. I would never dream of resorting to this truly small act: or how about Australians, “don’t you love me for my accent and upbeat way, are not we all so good over here”-well, go ask their aboriginal people, or go look at the parochial states in Australia.If I were mean spirited, I might dilike people, who are just being people, silly at times. And I do like Canadians and Australians, and Brits a lot..we relate on a language and cultural level in many ways, but have interesting things to teach each other..
The most altruism in Iraq is coming from a few countries such as Poland, and the the country whose government raced into this war while waving all kinds of emotional reasons (they sandbagged their own people). Worse, the USA government probably hid some reason from the public that were very wrong and NOT representaive of the needs and interests of the american people..what a mess….
Craig, sorry for the late reply. Blame work.
I’m not trying to get you to admit anything in Iraq or anywhere else. My feelings on the subject have already been expressed in this blog: the war was wrong and disbanding the Iraqi army was stupid. Otherwise, we have what we have and we must decide where to go now.
The reason this thread started was my reaction to your use of the word “civilized.” You stated that you would reward civilized behaviour and punish uncivilized behaviour – or words to that effect. I reacted because I don’t think the civilized world is particularly civilized at all and I doubt we can tell the difference between the two behaviours. I’m not singling out the US other than in specific examples, it applies in Europe too.
What is civilized? Why do we, Europe and the US and whoever, feel that we are civilized and others aren’t? Why do the civilized feel that the uncivilized are inferior? If being civilized is so great, why are we so afraid that uncivilized cultures might usurp our role as leading light?
I am reminded of Spartacus’s slave uprising (partly because I just saw the remake.) It was squashed by a civilized Roman empire even though the objective of the slaves were, in fact, the stated objectives of Rome itself.
Go talk to ordinary people that just happen to be caught up in conflicts around the world today. Talk about anything: life, love, music, books, philosophy, whatever you want. I’ll bet that the majority of afoe participants would find themselves more in tune with those opposing what we call civilization than those trying to maintain the status quo.
I accept, that THE ATROCITY OF WAR, makes it a near absurdity to argue about civilization. Perhaps, only the word ‘UNcivilized’ should be used when describing man’s behaviour, reserving the word ‘civilized’ for abstract conditions unavailable on earth. My use of the word civilized in the context of war and collateral damage… had no chance of flying.
Looking closer at YOUR feelings on the word civilization: You kind of say, those opposing the status quo generally are more “in tune” with those caught up in conflict ….
‘Caught up’ in this case means pacifistic or not fighting. Naturally, those indifferent to a cause or unwilling to fight for it, are unlikely to want war on their doorstep, though they may support the war on their neighbors doorstep. They would of course be closer to those forces opposing either side of the conflict.
But do you, or I, or other readers believe that circumstances might or could warrant fighting for a people or nation, family, health, life, economic well-being, or freedom? Or are these forms of self preservation wrong? Is a UN mission in Rwanda (bad example, I know)or Bosnia always wrong! In other words, are we truly and rightfully pacifistic? And are those who will not fight NEVER acting cowardly?
I would certainly say that it is natural for a thinking and caring person, in a relatively civilized moment, to look for ways to improve (change) the world for the better. And this is a point taken against the status quo.
But I do see cowardly acts every day, almost every day of everyone’s life is filled with acts of avoidance, or habit….take the bloke who ‘cans’ or ‘fires’ someone because the boss says to, without thinking to object.
Arguing for those against the status quo, in this limited example of war, might as a general principal, require one to believe that organizations act less civilly than individuals or small groups?
Or, one might need to believe that forces of change manifest themselves in favor of the civilized versus the uncivilized.
But individuals can be a really unsavory lot .. so I do not know how civilized a pacifist in a war zone is, or any group of individuals.. you know, American individuals voted for Bush the second time round … I do not know that American organizations predominantly supported Bush, the Democratic party certainly did not ….once again, it is always safer and easier to describe what is uncivilized.
But do you, or I, or other readers believe that circumstances might or could warrant fighting for a people or nation, family, health, life, economic well-being, or freedom?
Craig, you miss the point. The issues you point out are those being fought for. But, not by the civilized. By the others, the uncivilized, the terrorists, the insurgents, the freedom fighters, the rebels, call them whatever depending on the conflict. Civilization fights for the status quo, the uncivilized fight for something better.
Lets face it, “civilization” sucks. Civilization puts people like your favorite Mr Bush in the position where he can do most damage. Civilization is working very hard to reduce the number of casualties in a conflict – the number of civilized casualties – while increasing the zone-of-neutralization (wonderful phrase that.) Civilization helps protect the most vile offenders of the most vile crimes (you can name your own favorite example here) and get all uptight about totally trivial issues (own examples, again.) If you hadn’t guessed, I am not a great fan of civilization. But, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, nobody has any better ideas. Not today, at least.
The great thing about civilization is its self-perpetuation by fighting for the status quo in the name of: civilization. After all, it is obvious that anybody who rales against civilization is uncivilized. Logical. QED. Take, for example, those upstarts in colonial Boston a few years ago. How uncivilized can you be. A bunch of farmers facing the might of an, admittedly, distracted, civilized world. And, they won – what? At first, it seemed to be the priviledge of keeping slaves for a few more years.
Ninety-nine out of a hundred insurgencies (radical governments, terrorist organizations, off-beat pop groups…) go nowhere. And, deservedly so. One per cent changes life for everybody. Can you, or I, predict where the next one will come from?
Which doesn’t mean I condone violence from either side in a conflict. On the contrary. However, it does mean that I don’t automatically feel on the side of the “civilized.”
I did miss your point, Michael. I agree with your last 2 comments, completely.