I have no comment on this extremely preoccupying situation except to advise that you choose your passwords very carefully indeed:
“CBS reported on Thursday that Berg was questioned by FBI agents who discovered he had been interviewed before because a computer password he used in college had turned up in the possession of accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zaccarias Moussaoui.”
Equally preoccupying is the question I feel now compelled to ask myself: have these people gone completely mad?
“NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) – U.S. forces intensified their war against Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday, for the first time sending tanks into Najaf’s vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its tombs.”
If you want to know why I see it like this, Juan Cole – who knows a hell of a lot more than I do about Islamic customs – also puts it a hell of a lot better than I could: here, here, here.
“My own view is that Muqtada has now won politically and morally. He keeps throwing Abu Ghuraib in the faces of the Americans. He had his men take refuge in Najaf and Karbala because he knew only two outcomes were possible. Either the Americans would back off and cease trying to destroy him, out of fear of fighting in the holy cities and alienating the Shiites. Or they would come in after Muqtada and his militia, in which case the Americans would probably turn the Shiites in general against themselves. The latter is now happening.”
“I don’t care what Sufouk told them the Americans are most unwise to engage in major combat in Karbala so close to Husain’s tomb. They make themselves look like Yazid. If they, or whoever is reading this, don’t know who Yazid is, then they have no business being in Iraq, much less in Karbala.”
Also see this Washington Post article.
The people authorising all this would seem to have no values which they hold sacred, the astonishing thing is that they imagine others don’t either, and that them remaining in this ignorance will have no significant military and political consequences. Fear and respect are not the same thing at all. A war like the one we are supposed to be waging on terrorism will not be won through fear, only by our winning respect. At the moment all we are doing is putting up ‘own goals’ on the scoreboard.
I don’t know which makes me feel more afraid: seeing all this chaos unfolding before my eyes, or the thought that US electors might vote in November that this is a ‘just fine’ way of doing things.
Postcript: People often make the inevitable comparisons between what is happening now and the war in Vietnam. I may be corrected, but I never recall having the sense of ‘ethical anarchy’ during that war that I have now. Brutal and atrocious things may have happened then, but the sense of ‘out of controlness’ seems much greater now. Equally it seems to me to be one thing to appear to show contempt for the political ideology of another people and quite another to appear to reveal the same contempt for their most sacred religious beliefs.
Postscript 2: people may be right to say that this war was not about petroleum. But it is right there in the middle. And we have a global economy which is hanging precariously on a very thin thread which depends on every metre of advance – or retreat – made by those tanks.
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.