Sorry about the war

[andrewducker]

Excellent explanation of why the war happened.

Of course, the person writing it is one of those right-wing types, and I don't agree with all of the stuff around the emotions, but the simple categorisation is quite astute and honest (and completely different to the official line, of course).

Comments

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Very interesting and makes a lot of coherant sense. I think there are a few major omisions (the effect of cash from the oil reserves in making Arab discontent felt so widely and a more in-depth analysis of the Israel question for example). But overal it fits quite nicely together and feels right.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, Israel is very important. And he ignores the fact that American has been meddling in the Middle East for decades.

But other than that...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

The thing that I find most offensive about the line "We went to war to save the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein" is that it omits so much.

1. It omits the past history of support for Saddam Hussein under the Reagan administration of so many senior figures in the Bush II administration. About the only two senior figures with Bush II who were not happily allied with Saddam Hussein back then are George W. Bush, who was in his early years of post-alcoholism back then, and Colin Powell, who makes up for it by writing in his autobiography that it was essential to leave Saddam Hussein in power after 1991, rather than support the uprising against him, because a popular uprising might have got rid of Hussein but might also have let the Iranians in. No compassion for the Iraqi people in either their actions or their speech, right up until the point when it became clear that no one was swallowing their stories of WoMD.

2. Margaret Thatcher's government is as guilty as Ronald Reagan's administration, but fortunately for them, Tony Blair took power in 1997, though the British companies that sold materiel and torture equipment to Saddam Hussein are still flourishing and supported by the British government. Since then, Blair's government has denied thousands of Iraqi refugees each year the right to remain in the UK, on the grounds that there is no reason to believe they would suffer persecution in their own country.

3. It omits the legal point that the only legal way a country can attack another, if both are signatories to the UN Charter (as the US, the UK, and Iraq all are) is if one country is threatening another. The reason there was all the talk about WoMD, hyped up as much as possible, was because the only way the invasion of Iraq was legal, and not a war crime, was if Iraq could be claimed to be a threat to the US and the UK. If it's obvious that the governments of the US and the UK knew that Iraq wasn't a threat, invading Iraq was a war crime, nothing less.

4. It omits the thousands of cluster bombs used in Iraqi cities by the US and the UK, in the sure knowledge that they would kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. (It also omits the US refusal to sign the new landmine treaty that would compel them to go clear up the cluster bombs they used before they kill any more Iraqi civilians.) I've left this at point 4, but this to my mind is sure proof that whatever fine talk the governments of the US and the UK made about caring for Iraqi civilians, the use cluster bombs is explosive proof that they didn't mean a fucking word of what they said.

5. Finally, yes, if things get better in the long run for Iraqis under a new government (they are hardly better right now) then it may be possible, ten or twenty years down the line, to say "That illegal invasion of Iraq was justified by results". But it's kind of like claiming that if you know there's a paedophile in the next road molesting his children, and you burn his house down, killing one of the children, severely injuring a couple more, that you were justified in burning down his house because paedophiles are bad and the children who survive will be much better off.

[andrewducker]

I took from the article that most of it wasn't about the Iraqi's, except insofar that the New and Improved Iraq will eventually be happy and 'modern' enough to (a) not want to attack other people and (b)convince surrounding countries that they want to be more like those next-door peaceful rich people.

The legal issue was completely bypassed, because it was considered irrelevant by the people who actually wanted to carry out the attack.

And most of the reason was a show of force to make terrorist-sponsoring countries stop sponsoring terrorism. Iraq was chosen for the example because there was a handy excuse (or near enough).

As he so bluntly puts it across - they don't care about the Iraquis per se, they just want the whole situation to go away, and invading/reforming Iraq was a necessary step to do that.

Completely utilitarian and selfish, which is the kind of explanation I can accept (if not necessarily agree with).

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Sure, I can accept it, as a rather well-set-out explanation of what happened. I happen to think that what it describes is illegal under international law. If the US stops even pretending to care about international law, then I'm very, very frightened about the prospects for the world.

There's weird and shitty reasoning in that piece, particularly all that stuff about the "Arab street". Yes, invading and colonising will indeed make those dirty foreigners fall on their knees with gratitude.

[andrewducker]

It has to be said that a lot of them do seem to be grateful. While happily decrying the way things happened I am insanely grateful that the people of Iraq aren't rules by a power-mad dictator. If they can make it to a stable democracy I'll be even more insanely grateful, of course.

And I think that the US has demonstrated quite clearly that it doesn't care about international law. It's sticking just about on the edge of the letter of the law, ignoring the spirit entirely and would almost certainly ignore both if it thought it could get away with it.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

It has to be said that a lot of them do seem to be grateful.

It also has to be said that a lot of them don't seem to be grateful.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I think some of them are grateful, there's some evidence for that. However, there's also evidence that at least some of those who are grateful think that the US should back away right now, and let the Iraqi people get on with it, and that percentage is likely to increase as it becomes clear that that is unlikely to be the US's priority. In the long term, it seems to me that staying as distant as is possible (beyond securing basic human rights) and watching for the emergence of real, indigenous democracy is the way to go. It's like at least one women's organisation in Afghanistan has said: the last thing we need is to be seen as a Western front organisation. Whan Afghan women need is to grow their own feminism. Likewise, imposed democracy is inherently unstable, since it can't actually be democracy: rule chosen by the people. The terrorist problem already relates to the feeling that the US and the West in general imposes its will on the rest of the world.

[andrewducker]

I don't think that backing away this instant would be at all a good thing to do. I think the country would tear itself apart within a week.

I don't think you can impose democracy either, but you can impose order, and doing so for long enough for bottom-up democracy to take hold may well be necessary.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

The problem is that if the US troops motivation in imposing order is seen to be (by Iraqis) as the first step in setting up a colonialist-style government, they will not succeed in imposing order. I agree that the US troops can't simply pull out - the best solution would be for the US to eat crow and admit that they need to withdraw and be replaced by a UN international force. But that's not going to happen, in part at least because what Bush and Co want is to set up a colonialist-style government.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

And most of the reason was a show of force to make terrorist-sponsoring countries stop sponsoring terrorism. Iraq was chosen for the example because there was a handy excuse (or near enough).

Except that the handiest example of terrorist-sponsoring countries was the US. If the US felt that it would be a good thing in principle for countries to quit sponsoring terrorists, they could have announced that they themselves would cease to do so. They didn't. And they won't.

[andrewducker]

Nobody said they weren't being hypocritical. And I'm not going to defend them over it either. Lots of the past US actions have been heinously wrong, no doubt about it.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Add to that: the terrorists that Saddam Hussein could be proved to have supported were in fact the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There was and is no proof (or any likelihood) either that Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaida, or that Palestinian suicide bombers were planning to attack the US.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Of course, the other interesting point is if the Bush regime had really wished to reduce terrorism in the Middle East, the only logical choice for invasion is Saudi Arabia. Support for Al Queda is very real and very strong in that nation and they support Muslim extremists worldwide. The fact that Saudi Arabia has been effectively ignored by the Bush regime also indicates that reducing terrorism had little to do with the Iraq invasion.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I took from the article that most of it wasn't about the Iraqi's, except insofar that the New and Improved Iraq will eventually be happy and 'modern' enough to (a) not want to attack other people and (b)convince surrounding countries that they want to be more like those next-door peaceful rich people.

Except of course it won't. From looking at the history of the Middle East, three options all seem more likely, Iraq will be:

1) A defacto colony of the US under military rule.

2) A nation ruled by a brutal kleptocrat who is loyal to the US, rather than one who is not.

3) One ruled by an Islamic theocracy.

The US is doing nothing to prevent any of this and much that i building support for option 3.

Also, the worst excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime were actually committed in the 80s, back when the US supported him. While it remained a hellish place, widespread murder of civilians did not occur. This is particularly important because there are a large number of places where such horrors do occur: The problems in Liberia being a recent example and the cannibalistic genocide of pygmies in the Congo being an even more vivid one.

The people of Liberia are asking for US help and Bush turned them down. I consider this to be effectively proof that the US did not go in for anything remotely humanitarian reasons or for any concern over the Iraqi people.

So, we can eliminate both a perceived threat to the safety of the US and humanitarian concerns from the list of reasons for war. We are left with dangerous political games and blatant greed as motives.

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

Except of course it won't. From looking at the history of the Middle East, three options all seem more likely, Iraq will be:

1) A defacto colony of the US under military rule.

2) A nation ruled by a brutal kleptocrat who is loyal to the US, rather than one who is not.

3) One ruled by an Islamic theocracy.


On what historical precedent are you basing this?

And which of those are, say, Libya, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Israel?

Speculate all you want, but don't make the specious (sp?) claim that it's based on history of the Middle East.

Re: heh

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying democracy is impossible in the Middle East, I'm saying that democracy via conquest is. Also, I'm saying that the history of US involvement there has mostly been the history of our supporting various wretched despots like the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

"Therefore... only they don't proceed with the "therefore" because their unspoken therefore is "therefore we shouldn't have attacked Iraq; we should have pursued other approaches and left Saddam in power"

well that is the excrement of bulls. My very clearly spoken therefore is therefore we are faced with a man who is all the things himself and Blair claimed Iraq was in the run up to war. A threat to world peace? yup, a dangerous psycho with Weapons of Mass Destruction? yup A lying treacherous git? yup