THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

georgeob1 wrote:

Given that you concede that Saddam's capture is "a good thing", obvious to all, how is it that you are so convinced that everything about the process that led to it was bad?

In genereal there's two bottom line answers to this:

1) Costs outweighing benefits. Along the lines of: yes, of course its good that Iraq got to be liberated from tiranny, but this doesnt weigh up against the damage done to <pick your choice argument about global/Middle East security, peace and justice>. This answer greatly wins in persuasiveness if in two years time Iraq will perhaps no longer be a tiranny, but nothing much all that better either.

Cynical answer, but one you may well be familiar with (eg, yes, it would have been nicer if Chile had been a democracy in the 1980s, but the benefits that would have brought in terms of human rights wouldnt have weighed up against the costs of <pick your choice answer about economic misery or the looming Red threat>.)

2) The ends don't justify the means, as a matter of principle. Even if the Iraqis end up with a prosperous, democratic country, that still doesnt make, for example, launching pre-emptive wars, lying about the reasons you're sending soldiers into war, tearing apart the UN, etc, OK.

Moderate version of same: even if one does in the end, assent that the Good end of the story made the Evil means it was achieved with worthwhile, it still doesnt make the Evil means suddenly Good in themselves.

E.g., OK, it's 2005 and the Iraqis live in peace, democracy and proesperity, and the expected backlash didnt materialise - so in the end that may have been worth the lying, bullying and setting of dangerous precedents - but that doesnt suddenly make any of those things good things to do. This is basically where argument 1) ends up if the benefits do weigh up against the costs.

All, I think, perfectly valid and logical reasonings that would have one cheering Saddam's capture but disagreeing with the war (etc) that has led to it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The development of a modern, tolerant and at least partly democratic regime in Iraq will be a telling event in the resolution of a profound historical divide now facing the Moslem world - and the rest of us who must deal with them.

Equally significant is that the US being able to to this is telling.

Quote:

That there is a conflict of historical proportions going on between radical Islamists and more moderate and secular political forces in the moslem world is beyond doubt.

I also think that there is a conflict of historical proportions between those who support an unabashedly militaristic USA and those who don't.

Quote:

The insistence on a palpable conspiratorial connection between Saddam's repressive regime and this or that terrorist group, as a necessary prerequisite for constructive action is simpleminded in the extreme.

I'm not sure that it's simpleminded. You make a good point about a meta-connection but the nature of a meta-connection is such that allows much lee way to be exploited.

There are big problems with the meta-connection, namely that Iraq was a very secular nation by the region's standards and that exemplification could better have been achieved in other ways.

Insistence on a palpable connection is sourced in the dangers of nebulous connections.

Heck, I can make a convoluted argument toward the notion that the US destroying the world would be part of the "war on terror". I can make a convoluted argument suggesting that the destruction of Isreal would be part of the "war on terror".

The liberties that the less palpable connections allow have wide ranging implications. To me, this is a historic conflict about the validity of such leaps as well.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

That there is a conflict of historical proportions going on between radical Islamists and more moderate and secular political forces in the moslem world is beyond doubt. That the favorable resolution of this conflict is of immediate and significant interest to the rest of the world is also beyond doubt. That this conflict, as well as the actions and intent of radical Islamists, is the basic driving force behind much of the international terrorism besetting the world is equally beyond doubt.

I agree with all this - so how does Saddam and his capture fit into this? At all?

Saddam and his regime played practically no role in this "conflict of historical proportions" - which was (and is) played out so acutely in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. The radical Islamists had no measurable influence on or in Iraq before the war. To the extent that Saddam did fit the divide you sketch, he was on the secular side of the divide.

Toppling his regime did nothing to favour the forces of moderate Islam in their struggle with the extremists. If anything, the "development of an at least partly democratic regime in Iraq" will increase opportunities for radical Islamists, as it will allow them to gain at least a partial foothold and freedom to agitate in Iraq that it didnt enjoy under Saddam.

One may debate about whether democracy isn't worth all that, anyway (I think it is) - but one can't turn it around and claim that somehow, in a democratic Iraq with free media, radical Islamists will have less opportunities than under the secular dictatorship that had repressed their every potential agitation within the country.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think blatham was merely separating war from terrorism.

The US declared war on Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency can be called "terrorism" by some standards (targeting civilians) but at the same time it's a bi-lateral conflict of the US's making, so it's a bit tricky to start a war, invade a nation, and then depict resistance as "terror".

While campaigning for war this was sold as part of the "war on terror". I believe that to be a deliberately false distinction and the association to be contrived.

Those two things make the sale of this as a victory against terror a bit misleading. As many think this is a diversion from said "war".

Saddam's capture is a good thing but it has some negative implications for those who opposed the war.

1) It helps further the notion that started with the US symbolic use of Saddam to start the war. The notion that this was a war about a tyrant.

2) It is a symbolic victory that will detract from other victories and allow them to exist or not with less attention. In other words it gives political capital that can be used to deflect criticism and paint the post-war in a different light.

For example, this will help very much in the effort to justify the failure to find WMDs.

3) It is likely to guarantee Bush's re-election. This is, of course, only bad to those who view this that way. Personally I'd rather Saddam stay in the hole than Bush be re-elected but I don't care much as I have long thought a Bush victory was a given.

Most importantly: It causes enthusiastic east-coast military brothers to wake up their sagely wise and weary west-coast brothers at the ungodly hour of 6 AM.

This is the most intellingent and truthful assessment of the "results and reasons" of the so called 'war on terrorism', including it's spin, lies, half-truths, and 'appointed president'.
I, too, fear it may cause another four years with Bush.
But I remember when Nixon was elected and I cried, for the hate that was being promoted. However....
it was only months before he resigned in disgrace.
I think Bush 11 should remember this.

My opinion may not count for much Craven... But my hats off to you for your post.
jBlanchard

0 Replies

<looks up at number of current page's posts starting with, "QUOTE: georgeob1 wrote">

uh-oh ... poor george ;-)

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I'll hail Osama's capture as a victory against terrorism.

Even that is a big maybe. Surely the measure of victory in the whole terroism thing is less terroism and fewer folks wanting to engage in it. I'm not at all sure that the capture of Osama, by itself, will bring those things about, even measurably.

It wouldnt "bring them about", immediately - but it would help. Not THE victory against terrorism, but surely A victory against terrorism. You have to fight both the actual terrorists and the backgrounds they came from.

nimh wrote:

Plus, imagine Iraq having to keep him in jail - inside Iraq - forever - the attempts to help him escape one would always have to defend against ... the always lingering threat that in some future civil war, the jail doors would open and he'd be back ... the threat that he'd function as a martyr to some, especially if he's in an Iraqi jail while the Americans rule the country ...

The cool thing about the ICC or some UN tribunal is ... you can send your former dictator there and have him sentenced for some lengthy period of time - and have him off of your hands, throughout the whole deal ;-)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sure, there are other factors involved in why the US went into Iraq, but humanitarian just isn't in there, and the evidence, which you constitutionally will not accept, is the US's behavior in damn near every case imaginable. Ties to Israel fit in this picture, and the goals of the fun boys associated with Wolfowitz are key. But in ten years, and you know it, the US will have put how much more investment into Iraq than into Liberia or into Rwanda or AIDs? Oil IS it.

I find it difficult to follow your reasons and reasoning, It is quite impossible to know what were the inner motives of George Bush and other principal members of our government with respect to Iraq or any other issue. Whether or not humanitarian issues were truly among their motives is unknowable. We do know they claimed this, and, much more importantly, we know that significant humanitarian benefits have indeed flowed to the Iraqi people as a result of their decisions.

That there are and were many other factors, including the Middle East question, that figured in these decisions is no surprise - the Administration has repeatedly affirmed this.

You affirm that our chief motive must necessarily have been oil. Yet there is no objective evidence to support either the fact or even the necessity for such a connection. This is fantasy left over from previous decades.

It is true that the Iraqi matter wil consume more resources than were applied to Rwanda, Liberia, AIDs or many other problems that beset the world. However such resource measures are not the best measure of the effectiveness of what should be done. Certainly the existing world wide economic investment in treating and combatting AIDs is on the same scale as the cost of the Iraqi matter. Further, the direct consequences of the Islamist problem have greater world import.

0 Replies

blatham wrote : "What would I have Bush say? I'd have him be honest." watched andy rooney being interviewed on cnbc last night; that's pretty much what he said. and he can surely can not be accused of being a leftie. as far as iraq becoming at least somewhat of a "democratic" state, i think the jury is still out on that. unless all the books i've read dealing with the middle-east are wrong - and i've read quite a variety over the last few years; the earliest was written just at the beginning of the first worldwar; another one was written in 1930 by a german bahai who had served as a german liaison officer in the turkish army during ww I, who travelled troughout the middle-east by motorcycle in about 1929/1930 - the major problem in the middle-east and particularly iraq is the hatred the shiites/sunnis have for each other. perhaps someone who lived /worked in iraq/middle-east can enlighten us with some comments. the way i see it, it's not unlike the religious wars that lasted in europe for a long time ... and still keep flaring up now and than ... perhaps the situation in northern ireland is not too farfetched an example. i do not want to imply that northern-ireland problem/sqabbles/bloodshed can be compared directly to the situation in iraq, but i think it does show that ingrained hatred is difficult to overcome even in the "civilized" (?) western countries. hbg

0 Replies

Yes, george is pretty much outnumbered here. Quick doff of hat...put hat back on...hit him again.

I was just lying in a nice hot bath, soaking and reflecting and noting once again how attractive my thighs are...and I isolated a core to my anger in all of this.

With the fall of the Soviet empire, so much became possible. And it has been squandered.

I hold America at fault. That America is a violent and militarized culture is obvious enough simply in the television and movies it produces, but also in a range of social statistics (firearm deaths, etc) and in that America has within the last few years sent more than 50 Billion in armaments out into the world. It is as if Johnny Appleseed had gone out into the world, but not planted apple tree seeds at all, he'd planted landmines.

With the fall of the Soviets, all of the machinery and institutions of warfare needed a new enemy, and found one.

0 Replies

Without doubt, the capture of Sadddam is the single most important event in Iraq since the onset of hostilities. The propaganda value to The Coalition is unarguable. An opportunity exists, through the recently established Iraqi Tribunals, to bolster the impression of Iraqi autonomy as well, lending great credence to the indigenous authority. A scrupulouslly conducted, transparently reported trial, conducted by Iraqis themselves, may be expected, with world attention rivitted to the event. Given political exigencies within Iraq, that trial, and its attendent publicity, will serve Bush the Younger well over the coming summer, as that likely is the soonest any such trial can be held.

Of more immediate concern is what now ... what effect will this have on the insurgency? The days of a war ending with the fall of a leader on the field are long over. A desperate band of thugs lie at the core of the insurgency, and must now, to retain cohesiveness and credibility, step up their belligerant actions. Saddam as symbol of US impotence no longer exists; the foundation of the insurgency has been shattered. So long as Saddam evaded capture, the insurgents had that symbol ... that they no longer have. Over the next few days, we may expect a furious attempt on the part of the insurgents to show they remain relevant, that they are a movement of substance, not a mere impotent cult.
Under any circumstances, the elimination of Saddam is a massive blow to the insurgents; a guerilla war depends on psychology and propaganda. The blow, I think, has been rendered more telling by the fightless capture, and by the release of very unflattering images of the captured Saddam. Fallen in heroic resistance, Saddam would have been a martyr, a powerful rallying point. In prison garb and disgrace, he affords the opposite. Only significant success of insurgent attacks in the very next few days can provide any shoring up of the insurgents' position and influence. A mere step-up of activity won't do; there must be results. Their hero failed to lay down his life for the cause, the loyalists have nothing to which to remain loyal, the cause now must show immediate capability to inflict damage on The Coalition and on the Coalition-supporting indigenous infrastructure. In the long run, this can only serve the Coalition; by exposing themselves on the field, the insurgents render themselves vulnerable to Coalition neutralization. We enter a critical, and likely the terminal, phase of the war, at least in Iraq. As to the global conflict with terrorism, it is far more difficult to ascribe any real lasting importance to Saddam's capture, beyond its symbolism of yet one more defeat for the jihadists. Unfortunately, they are well able to absorb many defeats before becoming defeated ... that is the nature of guerilla war.

0 Replies

Does this mean that Haliburton gets to keep the money?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I find it difficult to follow your reasons and reasoning, It is quite impossible to know what were the inner motives of George Bush and other principal members of our government with respect to Iraq or any other issue.

It's impossible to determine precisely what someone's motivations are, but we are always forced to make a reasonable guess. Just as you opine that the war was not about oil (thus lending opinion on the motives) another can in turn with the "it's not humanitarian" argument.

Quote:

You affirm that our chief motive must necessarily have been oil. Yet there is no objective evidence to support either the fact or even the necessity for such a connection.

I agree with this, but in doing so am taking the evidence at hand and am making an educated guess at motivation.

nimh's efforts to correctly portray the US relationship with Saddam in the past are very relevant to this as are example of US positions on other issues in which our humanitarian concern could bring about change. Those are parts of the body of evidence that can lead one to argue that this was not a war for humanitarian purposes.

But I agree that it was not about oil.

0 Replies

...and the President said...

Quote:

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq," he said. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

...In genereal there's two bottom line answers to this:

1) Costs outweighing benefits. Along the lines of: yes, of course its good that Iraq got to be liberated from tiranny, but this doesnt weigh up against the damage done to ... global/Middle East security, peace and justice>. This answer greatly wins in persuasiveness if in two years time Iraq will perhaps no longer be a tiranny, but nothing much all that better either.
...
2) The ends don't justify the means, as a matter of principle. Even if the Iraqis end up with a prosperous, democratic country, that still doesnt make, for example, launching pre-emptive wars, lying about the reasons you're sending soldiers into war, tearing apart the UN, etc, OK.
...
E.g., OK, it's 2005 and the Iraqis live in peace, democracy and proesperity, and the expected backlash didnt materialise - so in the end that may have been worth the lying, bullying and setting of dangerous precedents - but that doesnt suddenly make any of those things good things to do. This is basically where argument 1) ends up if the benefits do weigh up against the costs.

All, I think, perfectly valid and logical reasonings that would have one cheering Saddam's capture but disagreeing with the war (etc) that has led to it.

Here I believe Nimh has given us the outline of a reasonable argument against our intervention. I don't buy it (for reasons I will explain), but I do recognize the self-consistency and reasonableness of the argument.

Firstly, while I do believe that peace is preferable to war and that support for the UN is desirable, I don't believe these are absolute values.

I don't believe that pre-emptive war is necessarily evil. I don't believe the world should be held hostage to the many intrinsic limitations of the UN in dealing with truly important issues. Sadly the UN politically represents the least common denominator of the many nations that make it up - hardly the standard required for international action needed to deal with the most difficult issues before us. Moreover, from an organizational perspective the UN has evolved into a particularly flabby and ineffective bureaucracy - often mismanaged, always timid and reactive.

The costs of our actions in dealing with Saddam are, and will continue to be, evident. The benefits relative to his continued existence as leader of Iraq can now only be imagined. The tradeoffs about which Nimh speculated cannot be evaluated with sufficient clarity to solve the moral riddles he proposes.

0 Replies

The intentions of key players are well documented in their own words in the well-known documents which have been around since 92 and which mention has been made of probably 200 times on this thread alone. We don't have to do much mind-reading here. How honest or dishonest they feel they need to be about these goals is well captured here

0 Replies

Blatham,

To what documents are you referring? Perhaps a few opinion pieces by "neo-con" theologians or their critics? Nonsense.

0 Replies

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, Cheney, Perle...etc etc. Irrelevant bit players? Come on george, don't try my patience too much here this morning. The Project for a New American Century.

0 Replies

Well, seems, people consider this really as a victory of Bush - no-one seems to pay attention to other things like e.g. Bush Gets a 'Can Do Better' From Terror Panel

0 Replies

Quote:

1) Costs outweighing benefits. Along the lines of: yes, of course its good that Iraq got to be liberated from tiranny, but this doesnt weigh up against the damage done to ... global/Middle East security, peace and justice>. This answer greatly wins in persuasiveness if in two years time Iraq will perhaps no longer be a tiranny, but nothing much all that better either.
...
2) The ends don't justify the means, as a matter of principle. Even if the Iraqis end up with a prosperous, democratic country, that still doesnt make, for example, launching pre-emptive wars, lying about the reasons you're sending soldiers into war, tearing apart the UN, etc, OK.
...
E.g., OK, it's 2005 and the Iraqis live in peace, democracy and proesperity, and the expected backlash didnt materialise - so in the end that may have been worth the lying, bullying and setting of dangerous precedents - but that doesnt suddenly make any of those things good things to do. This is basically where argument 1) ends up if the benefits do weigh up against the costs.

Exactly, nimh. And concisely put.

0 Replies

Walter, The Bush-bashers will continue to downplay the significance of Saddam's capture, while the Bush-supporters will claim great success. I wonder what ever happened to Osama?

0 Replies

If it takes six months to excavate all the rat-holes in Iraq, I guess it will take longer to check all the rat-holes in the ME.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know