The US, UN & Iraq II

Playing god is a dangerous vocation. c.i.

Perhaps too early to gloat, timber ... I tend to agree with c.i., better wait for the confirmation and analyse then.

Your suggested strategy, that its better to "keep up with what's happening and adjust accordingly than to try to cope with what has already happened", carries with it the risk of living in the impression of reality of the moment - and never getting round to doublechecking how much of the smoke really came from guns. (OK, that sentence didnt really work, but y'know what I mean).

I am looking fw: to hearing more about that Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Site, it does sound like a scary find, to say the least. But to indicate why I think more of c.i.'s attitude would be in place (would have been in place) here on these threads - in and after 3 months in which not one smoking gun was actually found yet - just ponder this ... w/not a lot of 'admitting nothing came up', either ...































------------------------------------



No offence, but timber, honey ... you're giving us so much smoke we wouldnt see the gun if it stared us in the face! ;-)

I think an American's attitude towards American is formed 'way back in grade school. I never went to a school which urged -- even in ritual -- unquestioning patriotism. QUESTION, EXAMINE, QUESTION, RESEARCH were the earliest things I learned about democracy -- these were the highest values, we learned, along with PARTICIPATE.

These, we were taught, would keep the system in tact and operating. We knew we weren't perfect; we knew it was scarcely thinkable that one human would know the way, truth, light. We tossed Eisenhower back and forth, general and president, looking at every aspect of the man. The school I went to bought and installed an early TV so that we could watch, day after day, the McCarthy hearings. I certainly didn't think Kennedy was a reincarnation from Camelot on our soil -- far from it! We knew "Camelot" was a clever and successful PR effort. We knew, on the one hand, he chased skirts, was a verifiable war hero on the other (you only had to be near him to see the pain he was in, still, after years), and a creative, dedicated president, flawed like all others, great like some. Etc. etc. Ironically, we may have gotten more truth about Vietnam that we have been getting about Iraq -- that was before the Pentagon had fully sharpened its skills in tethering and gulling the press. We certainly knew the US military were not uniformly noble and humane, but we knew of many who were. We learned that good kids could be conscripted or enlisted only to be used by irresponsible leaders to fight bad wars, witness and/or commit atrocities, return to suffering, ignominy and troubled lives. In other words, we knew America to have many good intentions and many pretty awful ones (just like us). But starting in the Reagan era everyone seemed want to impose a new ethic in which we should avoid observing and taking responsibility for our own country. It turns my stomach -- truthfully, it scares me -- to come across anyone who believes that we should shut up and believe, look on the bright side, honey. On the contrary, we should, as always, question, examine, and keep the sharpest eyes on our leadership and the conduct of our military when invading other countries -- before they are under fire, while they are under fire, and after they are safely home. Above all, we should never discourage fellow citizens from asking questions -- they may be the ones who uncover the truths which help us survive, save us from ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with expressing appreciation and gratitude for genuine heroism. There's a lot wrong with demanding applause for a maybe-maybe not as pictured in edited video.

A very smart Canadian of my acquaintance writes: "It's been argued more than a few times here that if any country is going to be number one in the world, the US is a better choice than others. But it is Americans who make that argument. We all love the cultures and places where we grew up, it is natural to do so. But when we take the next step, and say we ARE BETTER than the others, then warrant for empire and subjugation is granted."

Why can't we Americans be as smart about it as he is?

Question, examine, research.

VIENNA, Austria - American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq (news - web sites) unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

Thanks dyslexia, for the update. If these officials are right timber might have to add one more smoky suspicion to the list above (I'm teasing, timber, teasing). It might turn out the UN inspectors hadnt done that lousy a job after all, huh, considering they had to fight for every bit of leeway they got from the iraqi regime?

Seriously, tho, re: timber - i am just gently prodding here, not flaming - but perhaps we can go easy on the rumours a bit? I do also really think there's a concerted policy behind the rumoring - much of the rumors that later turned out to be unfounded (for now) comes from anonymous US sources - and the rumor always gets three times the publicity as the retraction, if any ever follows. Like somebody already noted, probably 80% of the Americans by now think WMD have already been found in ready-to-use condition - and that's, to quote the paranoid man who's really being followed, "exactly what they want you to believe".

Blatham wrote:

<That's hubris, and it is a deep danger. The Brits had it, the Romans had it, and the US has too much of it also. >

Really Blathem, can you point to one historical event that will prove your allegation regarding America? Just because you say it doen't make it so. Surely when you make an absolute statement such as this you must feel an obligation to provide some proof.

Thanks tres, for taking my post seriously and providing info and links in answer. Appreciate it. Media reports here make much of the nationalism of US media - pointing out how MSNBC has apparently (is this true?) some kind of expression of support for "our soldiers" emblazoned on the backdrop of the news studio, for example - but the only US station I can view here, of course, is CNN.

I do find CNN frightfully patriotic - in imagery alone, with the contriversial tag lines and all the flags - and I do find it to broadcast much more of the rah-rah-rah kind of items, and much less about the damage done and resentment caused in this war, than the BBC (whether national or World Service). The BBC again looks 'American' compared to Dutch or German news - while Dutch news in its turn looks a little 'American' compared to the snippets I saw in translation from Arab stations.

Of course that in itself doesnt say anything about which station in all this range is closest to the fair reflection of reality - but considering CNN is generally seen as 'liberal', I believe, in the States, it does indicate US media reporting tends to concentrate on one end of the spectre of possible perspectives, let's put it that way. I'm glad you showed how that still doesnt mean it's in any way monolithic, though.

Specifically troubling re: CNN I find the seeming total lack of reflection on Arab opinion - no daily overview on 'what the Arab papers say', few Arab - or foreign, period - guests or experts, etc.

You guys aren't watching very much.
There have been reports from 'angry Arabs' and pictures of devastation on FOX and CNN.

There have been pieces about criticisms of the US military, the soldiers displaying US flags, and the accusations about the US assassinating journalists. What more do you want to deem it fair?

Tartarin, thats a beautiful post up there ... and in its way, paradoxically enough, as fine a celebration of America as any.

Panama has been traditionally controlled by its tiny European elite, less than 10% of the population. That changed in 1968, when Omar Torrijos, a populist general, led a coup that allowed the black and poor to obtain at least a share of the power under his military dictatorship. In 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. By 1983, the effective ruler was Manuel Noriega, a criminal who had been a cohort of Torrijos and US intelligence. The US government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking since at least 1972, when the Nixon administration considered assassinating him. But he stayed on the CIA payroll. In 1983, a US Senate committee concluded that Panama was a major center for the laundering of drug funds and drug trafficking.
The US government continued to value Noriega's services. In May 1986, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency praised Noriega for his "vigorous anti-drug trafficking policy." A year later, the Director "welcomed our close association" with Noriega, while Attorney-General Edwin Meese stopped a US Justice Department investigation of Noriega's criminal activities. In August 1987, a Senate resolution condemning Noriega was opposed by Elliott Abrams, the State Department official in charge of US policy in Central America and Panama. And yet, when Noriega was finally indicted in Miami in 1988, all the charges except one were related to activities that took place before 1984 -- back when he was our boy, helping with the US war against Nicaragua, stealing elections with US approval and generally serving US interests satisfactorily. It had nothing to do with suddenly discovering that he was a gangster and a drug-peddler -- that was known all along.

It's all quite predictable, as study after study shows. A brutal tyrant crosses the line from admirable friend to "villain" and "scum" when he commits the crime of independence. One common mistake is to go beyond robbing the poor -- which is just fine -- and to start interfering with the privileged, eliciting opposition from business leaders.
By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama -- in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.
Since we could no longer trust Noriega to do our bidding, he had to go. Washington imposed economic sanctions that virtually destroyed the economy, the main burden falling on the poor nonwhite majority. They too came to hate Noriega, not least because he was responsible for the economic warfare (which was illegal, if anyone cares) that was causing their children to starve. Next a military coup was tried, but failed. Then, in December 1989, the US celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War by invading Panama outright, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands of civilians (no one knows, and few north of the Rio Grande care enough to inquire). This restored power to the rich white elite that had been displaced by the Torrijos coup -- just in time to ensure a compliant government for the administrative changeover of the Canal on January 1, 1990
Throughout this process, the US press followed Washington's lead, selecting villains in terms of current needs. Actions we'd formerly condoned became crimes. For example, in 1984, the Panamanian presidential election had been won by Arnulfo Arias. The election was stolen by Noriega, with considerable violence and fraud.
But Noriega hadn't yet become disobedient. He was our man in Panama, and the Arias party was considered to have dangerous elements of "ultranationalism." The Reagan administration therefore applauded the violence and fraud, and sent Secretary of State George Shultz down to legitimate the stolen election and praise Noriega's version of "democracy" as a model for the errant Sandinistas.
The Washington-media alliance and the major journals refrained from criticizing the fraudulent elections, but dismissed as utterly worthless the Sandinistas' far more free and honest election in the same year -- because it could not be controlled.
In May 1989, Noriega again stole an election, this time from a representative of the business opposition, Guillermo Endara. Noriega used less violence than in 1984. But the Reagan administration had given the signal that it had turned against Noriega. Following the predictable script, the press expressed outrage over his failure to meet our lofty democratic standards.
The press also began passionately denouncing human rights violations that previously didn't reach the threshold of their attention. By the time we invaded Panama in December 1989, the press had demonized Noriega, turning him into the worst monster since Attila the Hun. (It was basically a replay of the demonization of Qaddafi of Libya.) Ted Koppel was orating that "Noriega belongs to that special fraternity of international villains, men like Qaddafi, Idi Amin and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate." Dan Rather placed him "at the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and scums." In fact, Noriega remained a very minor thug -- exactly what he was when he was on the CIA payroll.
In 1988, for example, Americas Watch published a report on human rights in Panama, giving an unpleasant picture. But as their reports -- and other inquiries -- make clear, Noriega's human rights record was nothing remotely like that of other US clients in the region, and no worse than in the days when Noriega was still a favorite, following orders.
Take Honduras, for example. Although it's not a murderous terrorist state like El Salvador or Guatemala, human rights abuses were probably worse there than in Panama. In fact, there's one CIA-trained battalion in Honduras that all by itself had carried out more atrocities than Noriega did. Or consider US-backed dictators like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti and a host of Central American gangsters through the 1980s. They were all much more brutal than Noriega, but the United States supported them enthusiastically right through decades of horrifying atrocities -- as long as the profits were flowing out of their countries and into the US. George Bush's administration continued to honor Mobutu, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, among others, all far worse criminals than Noriega. Suharto of Indonesia, arguably the worst killer of them all, remains a Washington-media "moderate."
In fact, at exactly the moment it invaded Panama because of its outrage over Noriega's abuses of human rights, the Bush administration announced new high-technology sales to China, noting that $300 million in business for US firms was at stake and that contacts had secretly resumed a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
On the same day -- the day Panama was invaded -- the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...."

The Department continued with the pose as Bush rebuffed the Iraqi democratic opposition (bankers, professionals, etc.) and blocked congressional efforts to condemn the atrocious crimes of his old friend Saddam Hussein. Compared to Bush's buddies in Baghdad and Beijing, Noriega looked like Mother Teresa.
After the invasion, Bush announced a billion dollars in aid to Panama. Of this, $400 million consisted of incentives for US business to export products to Panama, $150 million was to pay off bank loans and $65 million went to private sector loans and guarantees to US investors. In other words, about half the aid was a gift from the American taxpayer to American businesses.
The US put the bankers back in power after the invasion. Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking had been trivial compared to theirs. Drug trafficking there has always been conducted primarily by the banks -- the banking system is virtually unregulated, so it's a natural outlet for criminal money. This has been the basis for Panama's highly artificial economy and remains so -- possibly at a higher level -- after the invasion. The Panamanian Defense Forces have also been reconstructed with basically the same officers.
In general, everything's pretty much the same, only now more reliable servants are in charge. (The same is true of Grenada, which has become a major center of drug money laundering since the US invasion. Nicaragua, too, has become a significant conduit for drugs to the US market, after Washington's victory in the 1990 election. The pattern is standard -- as is the failure to notice it.)

Thanks very much for that repost of the article on chalabi, perception! Very interesting. Juxtaposed with the article walter posted, i'm starting to feel i know something about this guy. And i agree with you, "i see no reason to hang him before he has his day in court" - not just b/c he is america's choice.

And tho i'd rather see a un-led interim govt than one overseen by a us military governor, i do think the pentagon might have gotten hold of the right end of the stick in their apparent plans to transfer significant power to a gvt of iraqi exiles/dissidents/oppositionals asap. Tho i am, as you know, a bit of a fan of the un, one of the notorious weaknesses of post-war un peacekeeping efforts has been the seeming inability to get to the point where they can delegate and leave. Somehow dependency is fostered in what have become largely aid-dependent international protectorates, in bosnia and kosovo at least. Not that afghanistan is doing any better, but theres nothing wrong with staking as much as possible on the 'native' card, i think its healthy.

Those opposing america always complain that it fights wars and then hurries out and leaves the mess to europe or the un to clean up, but this time they seem to fear the opposite: that america'll stay and make iraq its permanent foothold in the middle east. Now look at the street interviews with iraqis saying: we are grateful to america for liberating us, but we dont want them to stay, and you see an unlikely agreement of pentagon, the iraqi street, and the anti-american opposition: they all would like to see us troops hand power to an iraqi civilian gvt as soon as possible. The "realpolitik" strategy that appears to be espoused by the state dept seems a lonely one in comparison.

Oh, no offence taken, but pardon me, nimh, sweety , I think your recitation rather than chronicling my failures documents my accuracy. , I think you'll find I clearly label "speculation" and rumor, frequently add a personal commentary of sceptical regard, and freely admit when conjecture is not borne out. My assertion that Iraq pursued prohibited weapons steadily gains credence, by many observations. I postulated that if BND Intel proved out, it would have consequences for The German Position. The Intel was off-mark, I freely admitted it, and have since referred to other weakly founded Intel as "Likely Another Bodyguard Story". A potential mobile bioweapon lab is very much in the news today, some considerable while beyond my 2 February allegation. A similar, in fact nearly identical, situation exists regardfing underground concealment of prohibited facilities. The "German Smallpox Link" story was later in the thread consigned to "The Bodyguard Story" category while occassioning comment critical of the probity bot of some Intel Sources and some media. I remain confident investigatoion opportunities afforded by nuetralization of Iraq's Military and occupation of her territory will produce conclusove evidence of WMD activi9ty on the part of Saddam's regime. "The Chemical Plant" was acknowledged, ackmowledged in facrt with your succeeding citation, as apparently having come to naught. That citation also contains my conjecture that the following day would see the first substantial contact with RG elements. It did. Fortunaty, the risk of WMD deployment was less than had been calculated. The Pentagon neither confirms nor denies the use of Thermobaric Munitions in the Persian Gulf Theater. Nor do they offer any comment regarding the unusual fires following certain major precision weapon strikes. Moving on, a second "site of WMD interest" was much in the news from 4 April and on, and, as I postulated, the next few days did see major related developments. The Mustard and Nerve Agent story may yet see further development, as painstaking investigation continues. The documentation referered to, for instance, has provided avenues of inquiry. And the Mobile BioWeapon Lab story has considerable present currency. Some smoke has dispersed and disappeared, yes. I figure, however, I've been on more often than off in my conjectures, and have often presented to inquiry on this forum tidbits which some time subsequent to my mention of the matter became Big News. On some things, I've clearly "Gotten it wrong", but I've generally been "In Front of Events". I was specifically bragging about having picked up another "Story" before it became "Big News".

Far be it from me to say "I told you so", though.

So I'll just say "Thanks". :wink:

This is what I was trying to say, nimh. Thank you. I should be more careful when I post. I primarily watch CNN because I have done so for many years now. I will make an effort to find the BBC on my television. Unfortunately, my TV systems are so complex, I don't have the time to figure them out. So it's been CNN. And on CNN, the coverage is very biased, in my opinion. I see played over and over again the image of the Saddam statue coming down, the bit about the flags, the scene in which "throngs" of Iraqi people are cheering the demise of Saddam. Even on this forum, we all noted that the numbers were actually relatively few. Those who deny the American media bias had explanations for why there were so few. There was not much debate, if any that I recall, about whether the numbers were small. And yet on CNN, it has been repeated over and over, as I stand watching, and I don't stand there very long, that there are "throngs". This is only one example of what I'm talking about. I did not see any time when the camera picked up the reality that the numbers were so limited. There are numerous others on CNN. I will say that the ratio of sad, tragic, or anti-war confirming stories to the rah-rah stories is very low indeed.

I looked at a Newsweek today as I left my office. The picture of Jessica is on the cover. Inside we see a photograph of the rescue. It is a marvelous story. Every mother and father, brother and sister, friends and neighbors can feel very good about it. I don't know the whole story on this. Maybe there's a good explanation for why the photographer was there at that moment to snap this excellent PR shot, but whether there is or not, there is no doubt that the story has been promoted as have several others by the PR guys. There's nothing wrong with PR in general, it's a very good way to sell a product. But there seems to be something wrong when it is so brazenly used to hype a tragedy such as this war or any war. And I am dismayed that so many of the members of the media, which I had grown to trust, are so willing to go along with it. Where is the journalistic doubt and inquiry? It can be seen on some channels, I hear. NPR is more balanced, I think. And BBC. But this is a very small proportion of media outlets in this country, and one of them is not even American.

I'm not sure what I think about the "liberation of the Iraqi people." On the one hand, it seems that it is a good thing. Liberty is good. Most of us agree. But my question is whether so much liberty, so violently introduced is the best for the Iraqi people. Would it have been better to move with more care and respect for the country's ability to sustain an open, fair system of government? In my profession, psychoanalysis, insight and change are approached with care not to bring on more anxiety than the patient can manage and maintain equilibrium. This "shock and awe" is hardly careful.

double post due to my impatience with extreme slowness of site, sorry

Actually, it was a tripple post, lola ... I cleaned one up and was on my way back for the other. You beat me to it.

Nimb wrote:

And tho i'd rather see a un-led interim govt than one overseen by a us military governor.

Thanks Nimh---even though we don't often agree you at least do not have a closed mind.

About your statement above-----an un-led gov't than one overseen by a us military governor. With all the factions who as we speak are hacking each other to death in one small town(the two clerics) and all the other problems just how in the hell would you set about doing your mission impossible. Please try to use just a little common sense here and take it one step at a time.

The first step is to restore order and that must be done by US military.

The next step is to identify local leaders with enough force of will to provide some sense of authority backed for now by our military.
The real danger here is that these local leaders will grab too much power and not relinquish it when it comes time for the people to elect more representitive leaders.

The next step is to enlist enough local people to act as a police force. It only after these three steps have taken effect that anything else can be done. If local administrative people cannot do their job due constant harassment from thugs or are constantly murdered going to work then chaos reigns and the country crumbles.

As soon as order is restored Jay Garner and his crew can move in start to establish/restore the local administrative infrastructure.

Now if you think the local people in every area can stop squabbling among themselves long enough to do this without any outside assistance I've got some beach front property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Thanks, Timber. Dys, that was a very helpful post. Thanks.

Nimh wrote:

not just b/c he is america's choice. (Speaking about Chalabi)

I didn't miss that little dig---I just forgot to mention it. I really don't believe he is America's choice----he is one of the choices.

He apparently is a very bright and charismatic guy and if he rises to the top like cream he will receive much more attention and backing. If he's a "dud" we need to find out quickly. We want to have a conference of potential leaders who have been identified, as quickly as possible to form some semblence of an interim gov't but that's just one of the steps.

This will not be an easy task---I do not envy Jay Garner but he is well known and a proven quantity from his activities in the North after the last gulf war so I wish him well.

BTW--you seem to have forgotten my 20 day forcast which you were keeping track of.

Update: "Thousands and thousands" of unarmed Iraqi uniformed military and un-uniformed military age males near Tkkrit are moving in orderly, non-aggressive manner toward Kurdish-Controlled area. The line "Stretches for miles", "Largest concentration of Iraqi military observed to date". I'd call that a "Major Surrender Development".

timber, If that's true, it sure can be good news for everybody. c.i.