Awkward Questions On War

Re: Awkward Questions On War
Some more attempts at answers of my own:



do you mean before the war started or even now, too?

before the war started, of course, the protest and public discontent in the UK/US/Spain did weaken the case Bush was trying to make about the immediate necessity of the war - and thus weakened the sense of immediate threat he was trying to convey to saddam. in combination with the sharp divisions between the SC states - between all the world's states, in fact, most of which rejected the kind of ultimatum the US was trying to pose to Saddam - it will have given Saddam the feeling that he could still wriggle out of the threat and survive. Encouraging him to give in piecemeal rather than wholesale.

two questions about that, though. one: would he ever really have given in wholesale, even had all the UN supported the US? if the demand was indeed, first: prove to us within two weeks that you've given up everything you have - something even i find hard to imagine being possible; and later even: get out of the country - would he ever have done that, even with all the UN on his back? i dont think so. if not, you can thus ask yourself whether the ultimatum-strategy was ever a realistic concept of diplomacy. i tend to think that the existing UN strategy of eliciting concessions piece by piece was working, and had already turned Saddam's regime into a shadow of the threat it once posed; whereas i think the ultimatum strategy, posing demands saddam could or would never have given into, would just have led him to dig in. in fact, i think the strategy wasnt ever seriously meant to do more than that: i think it was just masking the real US intent to build up to the war it had already resolved to start.

second counter-question: if we accept that, of course, to some measure the clear divide in diplomacy and public opinion in the west must have encouraged saddam to try to hold out - whose fault is that? your question does suggest it was the protestors' responsibility. i disagree. such an extent of protest and diplomatic division hasnt been seen in decades - only a very foolhardy policy could have created it. by pursuing such a foolhardy strategy, it was the US govt itself that provided Saddam with the opportunity to capitalise on the divisions it was bound to wreck. i do believe that this would never have happened under clinton.



considering saddam's track record in respecting the interests of civilians, i dont think there was ever a question whether he wouldnt use the tactic of 'human shields'. it is a common enough practice in war, especially in wars fought from a militarily inferior position: you retreat to guerrilla warfare tactics. he would always have done it, whether there'd been protestors in the street or not.

it's also not as if its the protestors only who have made the coalition gvts sensitive to the civilians' fate. first, the US is keen to make this an operation 'iraqi freedom'. in order to do that they need to win the hearts of the population. that end goal would always have made it impossible to battle through enemy lines regardless at what civilian costs, and would thus have always made them vulnerable to this saddam tactic. second, no population ever likes to have caused massive civilian casualties, especially not in this media age of live broadcast death - and only dictatorships as brutal as saddam's can afford to be wholly insensitive to this popular distaste. so in that sense your question is valid only as a more wider one about the implied 'weakness' of democracies. i dont think the protestors added anything more than an added degree of urgency to that issue (but yes, that much i'd concede).

as for his "moving Iraqi military units into towns and cities", period - that's just sound military strategy, from the Iraqi point of view. who needs control over the desert if your only chance is to hold out as long as you can?



yes



no, see above - he would have done so in any case, because the "opportunity" of using the public opinion in the west against the coalition's governments would have been there in any case, protestors or not. always did come up. see previous wars.

and, again, the only way to take this opportunity away from such "guerrilla dictators" as saddam now is, is to present a truly unmalleable unified block of public opinion that would authorize pushing ahead at no matter what extent of civilian cost - and that, i think, though giving the UK/US troops the advantage of unlimited leeway, would have been at the cost of the very essense of the civilisation the US/UK are claiming to fight for.

Hhhhmmmm ... that's a very good question. If the US is up for playing policeman of the world, why not use that - whatever the reasons are behind it - to get rid of a few dictators?

I've never had much up with the argument - well, we're not intervening against X/Y/Z either, so we cant attack this one either - it's hypocritical! i'm all - yeh, so what? every dictator less is one less, not? but its a tricky game. i already kinda posted why: the motivations of the US, in this case, also determine the outcome for Iraq. If the motivations of the one power who will have the absolute control over what happens after the war - who will be able to play draw-the-map about the reordering of Iraqi state, society, politics - are not about democracy and human rights, then what are the chances that they'll yield democracy and human rights? In Yugoslavia, no such absolute post-war control was implied - Kosovo went to the OSCE and self-government, Serbia returned to its own democratic government, in the end.

Also, you have to consider the sheer immensity of the precedent this war - and the post-war absolute US control over the fate of Iraq it currently seems to imply - sets; the consequences it has for everything from international law & order to stability in the Middle East to a new mass influx of infuriated Arab volunteers into terrorist organisations.

Thats a lot of costs to take on to achieve what will - refering back to my question about what the "hidden agendas" of the US will mean for the Iraqi's future - be only a relative liberation of the country. (But I know I'm sounding like a realpolitician now).



Historical comparisons are tricky. Yes, if governments "had known" - or, to be more precise, if they had been more willing to listen - about the fate of the Cambodians under Pol Pot, international troops might just have been able to intervene (well, I doubt it, with the Cold War going on, but you get my point). But in Vietnam, the US government did think it was doing exactly that kind of thing - and in that messianistic delusion of "to free the village, we have to bomb it", they caused 2,000,000 Vietnamese to die (compared to 50,000 US military casualties), in one of the most murderous wars last century.

So - you always have to decide which historical parallel is the most relevant. As you say:



Now that's a good question, again. The thing with Saddam is: there's no question about his regime being a brutal dictatorship. And in brutal dictatorships every month dissidents and ordinary people get tortured and killed. But unlike what the US/UK case would have us believe, its not like any current organised mass slaughter was going on. You are asking, "One hundred thousand? One million?" - well, those figures are obviously way beyond what the Saddam regime was taking in civilian lives. Last times it got remotely near was during the war with Iran (when we supported it), the clampdown on the Shi'ite insurrection (thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of deaths, and we stood by and watched), and the gassing of the Kurds (several thousand deaths in 1987-88; after which Bush Sr personally vetoed a Congress proposal to impose sanctions in retaliation, instead rewarding Saddam with a new billion-dollar loan).

Thus far, the case for 'humanitarian' military intervention seemed to be limited to cases where there was either an acute escalation - compare Kosovo, where suddenly, a whole province's population appeared to be deported or killed - or an intolerable massive scale of killing - compare the examples the historical precedents of Hitler and Pol Pot would pose. To include Iraq in either would mean a considerable stretching of criteria, and does imply a whole shopping list of states to take on next. Counterquestion to you is whether you'd be willing to go there.



This is just a personal opinion, but I think even the idea of justifying the invasion of a country simply so as to secure its oil supplies for your own population is outrageous. That kind of logic would bring us straight back to the 19th century.

Good job, Nimh.

And your comments re: my diversion is well taken. I'll drop it.




Snood, thanks for the support.

BM

Frank & Snood

I'm not sure exactly what you two have been eating / drinking or smoking, but may I suggest that you both cut back a little.

The 'awkward questions', are directed as much to me, as anyone else. If you want to believe that they display my 'bias'. then go on thinking that if it makes you happy. If you have taken such a dislike to the questions, or the way I asked them, or even a dislike to me, I really don't care. I'm just puzzled that you even went to the trouble of posting replies on this thread, if you are so upset by the questions, instead of moving along somewhere else!

If I was 100% pro war, or 100% anti-war, without a single doubt in my mind, I would be quite happy to say so, rather than reveal my opinions on such a serious subject in a half-assed, indirect way. You obviously don't know me very well!!!!

OK, eh, stinger, now you got some serious attempts at answers to your questions, and frank already responded that he'd drop the how&why-discussion about your post so that we could all focus on your questions, so, err, shall we, stinger?

thanks

Stinger, I've taken your inquiry very seriously, and responded with my opinion. What has disappointed me to some degree is your lack of response to what I have offered. c.i.

CI

I have been giving people a chance to express their views, and hopefully saying something that would give me something to ponder on (As well as being busy doing stuff that pays the bills!!). Despite the views of Frank & Snood, my opinions are not as biased as they apparently think. If I was biased, I think that I may have been quick to respond with my own view of the world (Which would obviously have been the true and correct view!), and you would have I'm sure been grateful to me for imparting my wisdom, in order to show you how wrong you were on a particular point!!

Anyway, in the meantime, offline, I was thinking / composing a response to yourself and Nimh, which I have cut and pasted below. But to be honest, on this thread, I'm absorbing more than sharing.... for now anyway. I have a lot of thinking to do, hence the thread, the questions to provoke answers, even at the risk of receiving answers that are as awkward as the questions!

C.I.

Thanks for your considered reponses.

Your support for the troops in Iraq, even though you do not necessarily support your government's reasoning for sending them in the first place, is a stance shared by many people on both sides of the Atlantic, and even quite a few British politicians in Tony Blair's own party.

I have also heard on the news that two UK soldiers have refused to fight a war, in which civilians may be killed. I believe they have been sent home, and will face disciplinary proceedings. Whatever the truth of the story, it probably won't emerge until after the war is over.

There has also been controversy surrounding at least one of the incidents in which civilians were shot by US forces at checkpoints. I think a Washington Post reporter has claimed that at the time of the shooting, there was certain comments expressed by an officer, that no warning shots had been fired, even though he had ordered his men to do so via a radio. As with many other incidents, we may not know the truth until the dust has settled, months from now.


Nimh

You have been very busy! It's also good to see that I'm not the only person asking myself questions about my own opinions. Simply telling ourselves that we are right, and never questioning our own beliefs, is a mistake that a lot of people make.

I think an appropriate phrase may be....If you think that you have all the answers, then you have probably not heard all the questions!

Too many people are sure that they have all the answers.

As I said earlier, I'm not here to pass moral judgement on anyone else's opinions / beliefs or the rights and wrongs of this war. Personally, I don't feel that we know enough about all of the issues. Too much in politics, happens behind closed doors. The media, especially in time of war, is full of propaganda, from all sides involved in the fighting, and even from those standing on the side, watching events unfold. There are many hidden agendas at play, in various countries, and on both sides of the pro /anti war arguement. Somewhere in the middle of this fog of war, exists the truth. What is the truth? Perhaps someday we will know for sure.....but I doubt it. Maybe the best we can hope for, is to get as close to the truth as possible.

With regards my comments about Hitler and the Holocaust.....I was refering to the possibility of a modern day Hitler, in 2003. Not a Hitler back in the 1930s or 1940s. If we knew a present day Hitler was evil, a tyrant, exterminating Jews, today, would that be a sufficent justification to invade and remove him? Would we refrain from war, if Hitler only gassed 100 Jews. Would we wait until the total reached one million? Would we refrain from war, providing he didn't have weapons of mass destruction? My point was, when we would feel it morally right to declare war and invade, and remove a modern day Hitler.

Hitler was killing millions in the concentration camps, while Saddam has perhaps been operating on a smaller scale. However, evidence is emerging now, in areas held by UK forces, that Saddam's terror campaign against sections of his own country, is a sad fact of life for many Iraqis even in the present day. UK troops have uncovered torture cells, and local Iraqis are co-operating with UK troops, in uncovering arms caches, and identifying individuals who had been working for Saddam.

Saddam's terrorism against civilians may have been on a different scale, or of a different type as that used by the Nazis, but from the comments made by some Iraqi civilians to a British TV crew today, there are certainly many Iraqi people who can not see much of a difference between the fear experienced by many under Saddam, and the fear experienced by many in Hitler's Germany. Since WE have not been living in fear of arrest / torture / execution by Saddam's secret police etc, it's probably easier for us to say that Saddam's style of terror / oppression of dissent etc, is not as bad as Hitler's holocaust. But if I was an Iraqi, and a potential or actual victim of Saddam, then I might feel (With a strong instinct for self-preservation) even one victim was too many, and would hope that someone would try to rescue me from Saddam's dictatorship? I might welcome an invading foreign force under these circumstances. (Perhaps I am just selfish!!)

Although we were imposing sanctions, and maintained no-fly zones, and Hans Blix was searching for evidence of WOMD, there were still many Iraqi civilians suffering from Saddam's dictatorship. Is it morally right, NOT to use force to oust someone like Saddam, while so many people in Iraq, appear to have been living in fear? Was it right to hold back until evidence could be produced about WOMD? Were we more concerned with our own safety from nuclear / chemical weapons, than we were about the safety of Iraqi victims of Saddam?


Regarding war for oil.......while it may seem a horrible idea that we would stoop so low as to invade a country just to get their oil, do we simply think that now, because we are not presently suffering oil / gas shortages, or power cuts in our homes, downturns in our economies - unemployment / rising prices etc etc etc....Will we be so idealistic, twenty or thirty years from now? Or will the majority of people, be easily convinced of the need for war against a country in the Middle East that produces oil? Will any excuse, no matter how weak, be sufficient for us to justify in our own minds, an invasion, despite the fact that we know the excuse is dubious? Obviously we would like to think that when the time comes, we will make the moral decision. But will we? Will western society make that kind of sacrifice, when they can use a gun and an excuse, to take whatever they need?



I suppose with these comments, I'm showing my 'bias' again! If I am, then I'm sure someone will be kind enough to let me know!!!! Or maybe I'm just asking questions. Perhaps people shouldn't try reading so much into the type of questions I have asked, or waste their time trying to determine what my 'bias' is. Since my 'bias', whatever that may...or may not be, is of very little importance to this thread. I didn't realize that my 'bias' / opinions / views on the war in Iraq, was of so much importance!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2931475.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2932293.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2932207.stm

It would appear that I have my answer. It's hard to be critical of a war, when the people who actually live in the country, are so obviously happy that Saddam is about to be consigned to history books. The images today from Baghdad, are a re-run of similar images from Basra, when British troops arrived. The stories of torture and murder in Basra, during Saddam's reign, will probably be replicated in the capital city, and elsewhere in the country.

Leaving aside the arguments, debates or opinions concerning oil and weapons of mass destruction etc, it's been hard in the last couple of days, not to feel that the liberation of the Iraqi population from the terror inflicted upon them by a seemingly amoral, psychotic, sadistic leader, was a good enough reason for a war. It perhaps says a lot about us, and our leaders, that we have allowed someone like Saddam to remain in power (And even done deals with him in the past), and ironically, we may have allowed him to remain in power, if he had cooperated more with the UN weapons inspectors!

While there are many other issues, such as oil and WOMD that we can argue about for weeks to come, does the joy on the streets of Basra or Baghdad, now justify the war?

Stinger,

Thank you and your posters for some thoughtful comments. You have every right to pose your "awkward questions". The questions enabled a dialog to develop wherein others could express their own opinions.
I too, in the past, have sometimes been accused of having a "Bias" in the way my questions might have been posed. My purpose was identical to yours: to start a dialog where not only opinions of others could be examined but information about the subject at hand could be exchanged thereby benefitting all involved.

There is nothing wrong in having a "biased opinion" as long as one has reached it by gleening and processing information of good quality. How we obtain and verify that info, of course, speaks directly to its quality. The most important concept in forming one's biased opinion is the ability to reshape that opinion with regards to new verified facts. Sometimes one must bite the bullet when presented with overwhelming facts and change one's opinion 180 degrees. Being strong enough to do so only enables one to be more tolerant of other's "biased opinions" until we feel we have gathered enough info to form our own thoughts on the subject at hand.

In light of today's hopeful events , we have plowed and harrowed and must now carefully sow and tend the garden of potential Iraqi freedom. Exactly what is to be harvested, by not only the Iraqi but also the Arab people in general, is dependent upon the labors of both the Iraqi people and the original governing structure leading hopefully to Iraqi self-determination.

JM

We're all biased. I sure as hell am.

This thread has been a good one -- even if some of the exchanges have been unnecessarily heated.

Sorry for the part I played in being a bit over the top.

What's done is done. Best now that we all hope things work out well. There have been "victories" where history has shown no victories existed.

All of us, the ones who supported the war and the ones who opposed it, can be happy that at least one piece of **** is gone from planet Earth.

Let's see how this plays out.

James

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.

I think war provokes most people into thinking long and hard, not just about the actual conflict, but about their own world view, beliefs, morals etc. It's a good time to take a reality check! To step back, and reassess things.

It's easy for us in normal day to day life, to make decisions or form opinions on issues that are in reality, pretty unimportant, in the bigger picture. They may seem important at the time, but in comparison to a war, those formerly 'important' issues, seem trivial.

War is, to state the obvious, a matter of life and death. To express support or opposition to a war, requires more than knee-jerk reactions. It requires some soul searching. Some morality, rather than petty personal or political selfishness. Even if you are not in the line of fire, your opinions, along with the rest of the electorate, could lead to the suffering of other human beings, which is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly.

In the case of the war in Iraq, we had the choice of supporting the war, which could mean supporting death and suffering, not just of coalition forces, but of Iraqis as well. Or we could oppose the war, which may have meant protecting coalition soldiers, for now at least, but it could also have condemned many people in Iraq to life under a brutal dictatorship. Which in effect meant death and suffering.

From the comfort and safety of the west, we had the luxury of time to ponder and procrastinate on the morality, legality and justifications of war. Was it really about oil? Should we go to war without evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Or if there are WOMD in Iraq, does it really matter, since other countries also have them?

As the full horrific truth emerges about Saddam's Iraq, and I suspect there is much more to be revealed in the coming weeks about his repression and brutality, it has certainly caused me to stop and think. What has life been like for the average Iraqi, while we have sat back, for years, and debated the morality of war, or the effectiveness of sanctions or 'containment' of Saddam? The concerns and opinions held by many in the west, may have been sincere, and had the best of intentions for the Iraqi people, democracy, international law, or whatever, but while we discussed and contemplated the issues, Iraqi citizens were being terrorized, tortured, imprisoned and murdered, by Saddam's thugs. Ordinary faceless and nameless people, in a distant land were living in fear, unable to do anything to remove the source of their suffering. The best that they could hope to achieve, was to survive.

Even now, despite the images that we have seen of celebrating Iraqis, many people are still engaged in the argument over the justification and legality of war in Iraq. Still saying that without evidence of WOMD, that we had no just cause to invade Iraq, and depose Saddam. I'm happy to accept the views held by many, that there may have been one or more ulterior motives for entering Iraq, or that we would be less willing to go to war with certain other countries, or that we shouldn't have helped Saddam in the past, etc etc etc.....But the point I keep coming back to in my mind, is that no matter what we in the west, and elsewhere on the planet for that matter, may have done in the past to assist Saddam, and no matter what type of WOMD he may or may not possess, we have had a moral justification for many years, to use force if necessary to oust him. The protection of innocent civilians from a dictatorship's brutality.

To our eternal shame, we let Saddam remain in power. We 'contained' him, rather than remove him. Is 'containment' perhaps a modern euphemism for appeasement? He may be evil, and brutal towards defenceless civilians, but as long as it's not happening in our back yard, then we can choose to ignore it. Until he becomes a threat to us by acquiring WOMD, then we will simply contain him within Iraq. Going to war without evidence of WOMD would be immoral people said. While of course, stepping back and allowing mass murder, torture and political / religious persecution, is the definition of modern morality!

Of course, we could have left it in the capable, albeit bloodsoaked hands of the United Nations. But considering that the UN's ineptness, resulted in virtually nothing being done to prevent genocide in Rwanda, I have to wonder, what could the UN have done, or to be more accurate, what WOULD the UN have done to help the average Iraqi, living in fear of Saddam's regime? I doubt Saddam was trembling in his boots, at the prospect of the UN ousting him!


Frank

Glad to see that we are no longer exchanging gunfire!

I'll tie the noose around the neck of Saddam's statue, if you'll put the tank into reverse, and start pulling. Once the statue's down, we can remove our shoes, and in true Iraqi fashion, start beating the hell out off the bastard! Once that's done, I'll meet you at the palace gates. There are a few items of furniture that I plan on liberating from Saddam. Spoils of war!

Deal?

I'm glad I got back under control. I do tend to shoot my mouth off and then rue it later. Seems like "think first and shoot later -- if a shot is necessary" makes more sense.

I do want to comment on one thing you mentioned to James -- and I hope you consider my remarks.




That was well written, Stinger. Your use of the words "...for now at least..." in the second paragraph was a good move.

I wouldn't want anyone to think that everyone who opposed the "war as it was planned and initiated" -- also opposed all use of force, including war AT SOME BETTER TIME AND UNDER MORE UNIVERSAL AUSPICIES.

I suspect that the only way we would ever get Saddam Hussein to give up dreams of empire -- and get him to completely disarm -- would be by declaring war on him. But I would have preferred for the United Nations to have come to that decision -- as opposed to the way it was done.

I am not naive -- and I realize that we may never have gotten the United Nations to back up the need for force to disarm him.

Removing him from power, in my estimation, should never have been something that we planned as a major objective. If it happened as offal of the use of military force to enforce the disarmament, great.

I think we could have gotten the Security Council -- including France, Russia, and China to finally agree to force. It might have been another year in the making -- but a year is not a big deal.

Don't bring up the 12 years. We truly have not been trying for 12 years to really get tough with Saddam. This was a fairly hasty decision -- and could have been delayed in order to at least attempt to get the reluctant members of the Security Council to relent.

In any case, my point is that...

...opposition to the way this was handled is not necessarily equivalent to opposition to the use of force where required universally.

Good thread, Stinger.

I hope I'm not going to sound needlessly angry here. The Iraqis have been freed from their dictator, and that is the main thing right now. Continuing discussions with the kind of people who ... well, with the rah-rah-rah kind of patriots who never had a doubt about the legality of this war because the UN is irrelevant and the US is only right to intervene for freedom and democracy wherever in the world it wants to and doesnt need anyone's approval - those people - getting bogged down in discussion with them, like I did this afternoon in another thread, does tend to make me lose focus of what's really important. It's only when I look back at the headlines of the day and I see the pictures and I realise what an overwhelming thing just happened for the Iraqis, and how many people can drop their fears of more torture, more imprisonment, more acute fear this very day ...

Nevertheless, I can not let all that's being said, like here, just go like that - not in the name of the Iraqis, because its not them talking here and celebrating their victory, its Americans talking here and taking the chance the occassion offers to take pot-shots at the UN and other assorted idealists. Not even some of the things in your post. For example, where you write,



It strikes me sometimes that those who proponed war seem to have really only just now discovered that Saddam was a bad guy, that he was a dictator. And then they speak, in the elated rhetorics of the moment, of the "bloodsoiled hands of the UN", as you do, for not having allowed the US to start a month earlier, or for having pleaded for six months more.

This dictatorship has existed since 1968. Saddam has used his gas on the Kurds in 1988. The Shi'ites waged an insurrection only to be cut down mercilessly in 1991/2. Nothing's new, here. Nothing in Saddam's barbarity was suddenly happening in 2002, and needed to be stopped right now because otherwise an acute escalation might take place. Instead, Saddam was weaker than he'd ever been, as the war actually has shown.

For years if not decades all the major powers have not just let him be, they've funded him, armed him, encouraged him. We know about how Bush Sr. vetoed a Congress move to condemn the gassing of the Kurds, and extended an immense loan to him instead. It was Bush Sr., again, who encouraged the Shi'ites to revolt and then stood by while they were slaughtered by the thousands. I am not repeating all this just to be bashing Bush again, that's not why I mention all this. The reason why I mention all this is my sheer bewilderment about how suddenly it's the UN that's become the "blood-soiled" bad guy here - merely for pleading a few months of delay of military action against a country it was believing to be pushing to unprecedented compromises already - after decades in which governments like the Americans' had actively supported him!

I mean - I just dont see where the proportions are, there. Is the lesson of this war really that, if the UN pleads for months postponement because negotiations are seemingly succesful, it should be ignored, overridden and the US should go to war immediately? Or is the lesson really more something about how it should never have come that far in the first place - how the world powers should never again arm evil dictatorships to the teeth simply because they're next to an even slightly more evil dictator?

I'm sorry - I'm touched by the unexpectedly sudden solidarity of ordinary Americans with the Iraqi people, but it is just a little too late in coming to justify some holier-than-thou tirade about how the UN is a blood-soiled irrelevant monstrum. It's the American gvt, the French gvt, the Russian gvt, who have helped this guy entrench himself into power. The real "doves" of this year, whether it was the Canadians or the Swedish, the Greens or the Socialists, were then among the ones decrying the cynism of such behaviour when Saddam was already gassing minorities - and they were ridiculed as naive idealists for it. By some of the same people now speaking lofty words of liberation and pointing accusing fingers at the latter-day Chamberlaines of the UN. But all Kofi Annan, Hans Blix and their colleagues were trying to do was get the excesses that resulted from the world powers' foreign policies under control again.

I am really touched by the sudden commitment of the Americans to human rights, to the victims of dictatorship - I hope it'll last. But if you write:



you do realise, I hope, that Saddam was no exception. There are many brutal dictatorships out there, with populations yearning for liberation. I hope the commitment to them doesnt stop where American national interest does. Because I'm all for removing brutal dictatorships from power - and, yes, with a little military pressure if necessary. But if that is what we are goig to do in the world, with the kind of shopping list it implies, then we really need some proper ... procedures, if that doesnt sound too dry, about it in place. We cannot have this kind of thing continue occurring at the decision of the one powerful country about where, when and how it is appropriate.

I'd say that implies giving actual teeth to the UN, so that it can do more than it has done in the past. Because its the only institution that - representing the sum of all national interests as it does - has done anything beyond what national interest calls for, these past years. You write:



The UN doesnt have an army, so it cant march into Rwanda; but at least the UN did something there. It's thanks to the UN that at least the mass murderers of Rwanda are now being judged - while not one individual world power, the US least of all, showed any particular interest in enforcing or liberating anything or -one there.

I really hate to rain on your parade - I came online just now to express joy at what happened, not to start griping again - but then I got to your post, and just had to - swallow twice - at the realisation of how those who never gave a damn about human rights (the US gvt, for one) are now trying to make one of the very few instutions on the international scene that actually demonstrated any effective concern about the human rights issue into the blood-soiled appeasing devil. On the part of that gvt, I suspect a cynical motive, that of never again wanting to be slowed down by anything as boring as the notion of international legality in its rush to decide itself on any next 'just war'. On the part of those parrotting the "irrelevant/guilty UN" line, however, all that I can think of by ways of excuse is the zeal of the newly converted. Welcome to the club of those who think human rights are paramount. Now for gods sake lets start thinking long-term strategy.

Great points Nimh.

Many of us, those who opposed our actions as well as those who applauded it, are anxious to rid this world of some of the oppresive dictators who soil it.

But that does not mean that we want to do that "at all costs."

There are times when a bit of reserve is better for mankind than the "bull in a China shp" methodology.

And it hardly needs to be pointed out that the United States pushing its considerable muscle around may end up being more of a problem for mankind in general than getting rid of one or two dictators through those means.

Frank

I think that everyone would have preferred a non-violent method of removing Saddam and the rest of his regime. Unfortunately, the UN is made up of a variety of countries, with their own wants and needs, and political / economic agendas. Member countries quite often have their own selfish interests for action or inaction. The UN is, sadly, not full of eager idealists, keen to do what is right, no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs. If only it was!

Ideally, the UN should be a beacon of light in an often dark and murky world. A protector of the innocent, a defender of freedom and democracy. Sometimes it does wonderful things in various parts of the world, but sometimes it fails miserably. As I mentioned previously, the genocide in Rwanda is one such example of the UN failing, on a grand scale. The UN is not perfect, because the member states are often far from perfect. It should have done more in Rwanda. WE, should have done more. But we collectively failed the innocents in Rwanda, and in Iraq, and God knows where else!

As you said, it has been 12 years since the last Gulf War. From the perspective of many Iraqis in Basra or Baghdad, it has been 12 LONG years. Especially for many Kurds and Shia Muslims, who have spent the past 12 years enduring Saddam, rather than simply waiting, as we have done. While you say another year may not be much longer to wait, for some people in Iraq, a year is a long time, and one year can very easily drag on into two years......or three.....

Perhaps in a year from now, the UN Security Council, may have been willing to use military force to oust Saddam. But why would they have done that? What justification for war would have been deemed appropriate by the Security Council? Evidence of weapons of mass destruction perhaps? But if they don't exist, or simply can't be found by the UN weapons inspectors, then what would happen? Would Saddam have been left in power? Apparently the answer is yes. There are many, even now, who feel that the war is illegal and unjust, unless WOMD can be found. Apparently some people feel that freeing millions of people from a brutal dictatorship, isn't a sufficently moral or legal reason to go to war. So without WOMD as a reason for the coalition forces to invade, the celebrations that we are watching on the news this week, could have been delayed for years.

The motives for going to war, may not have been completely humanitarian. But they certainly should have been. While it's easy to be cynical about the motives for war, we could just as easily point an accusing finger at those who opposed the war. While many in the anti-war camp, claim to have the moral high ground, saying that the war is unjust, and that they are concerned about the plight of innocent Iraqis (And that Bush / Blair are not), one may ask, if THEY were so concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi population, then why were they not on the streets protesting for the past 12 years?! There are very few people voicing opinions on this war, for or against, who have been involved in a prolonged campaign to help ease the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. We all share a collective guilt on this one. Not just Bush and Blair.

I live in Belfast, Northern Ireland. During my life, I have grown up in a society in which your religious / political views could result in your death or injury. Due to the nature of terrorism, the threat was ever present, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't wish to over dramatize life here, since I know that life in Belfast during the so called 'troubles', no matter how dangerous or intimidating it could be at times, pales in comparison to the ever present danger and fear that Iraqis must have endured in Basra or Baghdad, because of their religious or political views, or simply because they pissed off the local Saddam goons!

But in a small way, I can undestand the joy that Iraqis must feel today, with their realization that they can now express a dissenting political opinion, or practice their religion without fear of attack. I can just about imagine the horror and fear that they have experienced for years, by extrapolating from my own experiences, and 'guesstimating' how much worse it was for them. I don't think that there are many people, sitting in the comfort of their homes in Europe or the USA (Me included), who are capable of understanding just how terrifying and horrific life has been for thousands of Iraqis. Their despair was probably compounded by the knowledge, that they were virtually incapable of doing anything to remove the person and regime responsible for their misery.

After 12 long years since the last war, no wonder they are happy that someone, for whatever motivation, has finally done something that will rid them of Saddam. It seems a little redundant now, for those of us lucky enough not to have lived through the nightmarish existance of life under Saddam, to be worrying about the legality of a war that has hopefully given millions of people a chance for a better future. I doubt those celebrating Iraqis, really give a damn about the legality or motivations for the war. They're just happy to be free.

I have had my own reservations about the war. But even if the liberation of it's people, is only a by-product of what was originally intended by our political leaders, I will still settle for that. It may or may not have been the primary concern of those in power, but it sure as hell is mine, and I'll take it whatever way I can get it, as quickly as I can get it!

Nimh

The UN does actually have a military force - 'UN peacekeepers'. Indeed, it even has a policing role in various countries as well (There are police officers from my country, currently working in the Balkans for example.) The UN actually had soldiers in Rwanda, prior to the genocide. Unfortunately, the UN politicians and bureaucrats, didn't listen to the warnings of impending massacres, that came from the Canadian brigadier-general Romeo Dallaire, who was based in Rwanda. Or to his requests to take action.

There is absolutely nothing positive that can be said about the UN's role in the events leading up to the genocide in Rwanda. The simple fact is, that despite several warnings of impending trouble, the UN did nothing to prevent it. Such was it's failure, it actually held an internal inquiry into it's handling of the whole episode. I think that indicates that it's not just my opinion, that they screwed up very badly. Putting killers on trial, doesn't bring back the 800,000 people that died in the space of a few months. I don't think court cases make up for the UN's lack of effort in preventing genocide. Are you familiar with the phrase about slamming the stable door closed, after the horse has already bolted?

STATEMENT ON RECEIVING THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING THE 1994 GENOCIDE IN RWANDA
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sgsm_rwanda.htm

Just one link of many on the subject of the UN and Rwanda.
http://www.martinstolk.nl/engels/too_little.htm

As I have already said to Frank, the UN is made up of many countries. I'm not picking on one particular country. I'm, blaming them all. They all have blood soaked hands, with regards Rwanda, and in my opinion, Iraq as well. It's a collective guilt, for every country, and everyone in the UN. Indeed, I could start a list of countries in which the UN could have done more, or should be doing more to deal with suffering, wars, and as you have already mentioned, dictators. Zimbabwe being one prime example. There is an ongoing famine in the country, and Robert Mugabe is allowing about one million people suffer from hunger. Who are the people that are suffering? The same people who politically oppose him. Meanwhile his supporters have access to food. After having to watch kids eat tree bark, I would be only too happy to watch Robert receive a Cruise Missile up his ass, but alas, it hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will some day. But I'm not expecting the UN to do anything to remove him. They certainly haven't done much so far, to end the horror. Meanwhile people are suffering. People are dying.

While you say the UN is the only organization that has ever "actually demonstrated any effective concern about the human rights issue", the simple fact still remains that the UN has considered it more appropriate to practice 'containment' of Saddam, rather than oust him. How has 'containment' actually helped free the Iraqi people from Saddam's brutality? In recent days, Iraqis have been running up to TV camera crews, and thanking Bush, Blair, the USA & UK etc. I didn't hear anyone praising the UN for it's policy of 'containment' of Saddam. Perhaps I missed it! Or maybe, Iraqis were tired of waiting for UN diplomacy to work it's magic on Saddam, and are happy that any country, for whatever reason, was willing to come and help them.

Sometimes, action speaks louder than words.

As I have already said in my posting to Frank, what would the UN have done to remove Saddam? What single reason could the UN Security Council agreed upon, as justification for war? If there are no WOMD in Iraq, what would have the UN have ever done with Saddam? Left him in power, since they had no legal reason to remove him? What would that have meant for the people in Iraq that he has been persecuting and repressing? Years of further suffering?

In an ideal world, the UN would be the panacea for all the world's problems. There would be no need for war. Every disagreement could be settled with diplomacy. However, it is obviously far from being an ideal world. When the countries that make up the UN Security Council, along with numerous other member nations, can't even agree on whether to take military action in order to help oust a brutal dictator, then it's becoming very clear that the whole concept of the UN, has a major problem. Too many countries, with too many conflicting political / economic agendas.

If you want to think about 'long term strategy', think about a UN without the USA. Perhaps a UN without the UK. Watching the farce unfold over recent weeks, the possibility of the US / UK gradually disengaging from their roles in the UN, no longer seems far-fetched. If the criticism of the war continues, and the UN's future conduct with regards post-war Iraq is less than helpful, public and political opinion in the US / UK may simply reach the point where the UN is simply ignored, or at best, tolerated. It really could become an irrelevance, at least to two important members. After the last few weeks, a lot of people already seem to think it is. It's up to the UN to prove them wrong.

But you are overlooking the fact that the UN was the only force to even try to do something about it - that had peacekeepers there, even if they failed, that did set up the tribunal afterwards. If the case now is that the "bloodsoiled" UN cannot be trusted with either world security or humanitarian disaster situations anymore and the US should take on that role instead, then the comparison should be between the effectiveness of US and UN in such matters. And the observation, in casu, should then be that the US wasnt even anywhere near Rwanda at the time. It wasnt because the overriding interest in US intervention abroad is still national interest, not human rights, and theres no national interest for the US in Central Africa.



My point was that the buck for the decades of Saddam's brutal dictatorship goes to everyone - France, Germany, the UN, and not least of all the US. Not much honor in finger-pointing there. The US was fine with containment all through the 90s - in fact, it launched the notion of containment itself when it decided not to press on to Baghdad and let the Shi'ite insurrection literally bleed dry. Just a few years ago, the US gvt was proudly boasting how Iaraqi disarmament was 80% succesful.

The only difference of opinion between US and UN arose these last few months, when the US suddenly decided an attack was needed right now - pointing to fictitious Al-Qaeda and nuclear links to prove its case - while the UN, noting the restart of inspections etc - pleaded for a few months more of diplomacy. Where I start to really get up on my hind's legs (Dutch expression) is when now US politicians - and people like you - unbelievably try to use that difference of agreement of the past few months to retroactively put the blame for "the Iraqi people's suffering at the hands of the brutal Saddam dictatorship" onto the UN, and to juxtapose the US position on the matter as the sweet bird of freedom. That is, even just talking Iraq, a historical chutzpah, as well as being an all too transparent attempt at trying to get the only power out of the way that still stands in the way of an apparently proposed American freedom to do whatever it wants in the world.

...

All that aside, I share your concern and desire about finding some way to establish means of tackling dictatorships. "Tackling dictatorships" - getting civilian populations out of harms way from them - hasnt been much of an overriding interest in foreign policy - ever, really, barring WW2 perhaps. Kosovo was ground-breaking stuff, there. I agree with you its time to do it more systematically. Let Mugabe worry. But - even when agreeing that the UN record is sketchy - I'd submit that no single nation-state can claim the role in dealing with this, because nation-states have national interests and strategic alliances. The US may well, out of national interest, support this dictatorship, while demanding an immediate attack on that. Though I'd cry "scandal" whenever it does so, in principle it is its right. But as such it per definition makes it impossible for the US to credibly claim it can replace the UN in such matters and autorize itself to play "policeman of the world".

Nimh

I have said repeatedly, that I am not pointing the finger at any country in particular. I have said, a number of times, that there is a collective guilt. All countries in the UN share responsibility for events in places like Rwanda and Iraq, and even now in countries such as the DRC (Congo). I am not trying to suggest that the US or the UK have any sort of moral high ground or superior track record.

I am not trying to retrospectively put the blame for the suffering of Iraqis, onto the UN. I am simply saying that there are too many countries within the UN, who are apparently happier to talk, rather than take military action. At least the US and UK were willing to police the no-fly zones for a number of years, which lessened
the suffering to a certain extent in the north and south of the country. Personally, I would have been happier if we had finished of Saddam during the last Gulf War. But how would the rest of the Middle East have felt, if the US and UK forces invloved in the last war, had taken it upon themselves to head north to Baghdad? How would the UN have reacted back in 1991 / 1992, to an invasion of Iraq?

I also doubt that the UN had the collective will to tackle Saddam, in 2003. And I doubt that the Security Council could have reached agreement in the foreseeable future, that would have involved military action. While countries such as France and Russia, were keen to criticise the USA & UK, saying that the war was unjustifiable etc, what exactly did they plan on doing? People may be cynical about US / UK motives, saying that the war was really about oil, but those same critics (Including many French / Russian critics no doubt), overlook the fact that Russia and France have / had, multi-billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq. So it's just possible, I would suggest, that those two countries were not simply acting out of concern for the Iraqi population, or world peace! Just maybe, they had their own motives for preventing war. Or is it only the US / UK that acts out of selfish economic motivations?

That is the problem with the whole concept of the UN. In an ideal world, all countries would share the same morals and principles. Possess the same desire to do what is right for humanity. However, the reality is rather different. Events concerning Iraq, demonstrate the flaws of the UN. I can't see the UN changing. It is made up of people, and contains the same flaws as people.

The fact that the UN had some peacekeepers in Rwanda, isn't exactly much evidence to support your belief that the UN was beneficial to the country, and that at least the UN was at least 'trying' to do something. There isn't much point having peacekeepers in Rwanda, if their warnings to their political masters, are going to be ignored, and they are prevented from doing anything to stop genocide. They may as well not have been there.

A lot of people are keen to remark, that the US / UK are only claiming to be acting out off humanitarian reasons, in order to deflect criticism. Those same people, no doubt, claim to be more interested in the plight of innocent Iraqis than the US or UK governments. However, as I have mentioned before, is a war lasting weeks, (with surprisingly few casualties in comparison to most wars) less moral than waiting years for UN diplomacy to work? You may think it is, but I keep thinking of the years of dictatorship that we 'contained'. The tens of thousands of Iraqi people who have died, even in just the past 12 years, waiting for the UN to remove Saddam. How much longer would they have had to wait? I would suggest, years, and very possibly, it would never have happened. Is the US / Uk acting without the full support of the UN, the ideal solution? No, But it's better than the alternative, which is years of the UN doing very little.


The simple point I will close with is, who liberated the people of Iraq?

Where was the blue berets of the UN?

If the UN is truely interested in helping oppressed people, and easing their suffering, ALL of the member countries will need to show a little more willingness when a situation arises, that requires action. UN sanctions didn't work in Iraq. It was worth a try, but it was a plan probably doomed to failure. Saddam was
a ruthless dictator. He didn't care if a million people died. Providing it wasn't his circle of supporters. People have compared him to Hitler. I would suggest he's more like Stalin. They both have the same disregard for human life.....on a grand scale. He remained in power during the sanctions, and that's all that really mattered to him. Anyone hoping that UN diplomacy or sanctions would frighten or intimidate him, were sadly mistaken. Unfortunately, about a million Iraqis had to pay the ultimate price for UN optimisim. It's a pity that it took so long before reality set in, and force was used.

Sometimes it's right to offer a carrot, but sometimes a big stick is more appropriate. The fact that the stick isn't used that often, maybe gave Saddam, and others, the illusion of safety. He probably thought that he was safe, since the UN would be reluctant to permit another war. Maybe he was right......or at least, partly right!

nimh, stinger, and Frank

I can understand stinger's impatience with the UN. Those proponents of the UN as a unilateral policy forming and executing organization in the New World Order must accept a strong and responsible role in world order for this body. However, this is a double-edged sword. If this role is to be adopted by the UN it must take responsibility for both the good and bad affects stemming from both its actions and inactions. The latter condition is that which stinger rails against when he refers to the UN's "bloodsoiled hands" in the case of Rwanda. This responsibility is self-evident but can we realistically build upon the premise of a single "governing" international body?
Alternatively, single nation states are not realistically held to this standard and can only be held responsible when a foreign situation threatens their own citizen's safety.

In his April 11, 2003 column in The Washington Post, George Will states:



See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5520-2003Apr10.html for full text

This is, of course, what stinger has already stated in at least one of his earlier posts. I must agree. I really wish I could see nimh's fair and just world come about. However, this world has no hope for "Fairness", never did never will. Lady justice is available but she, as beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. The Baath party, China, as well as the U.S. all have their own "justice".

The form of a global international authority, such as the UN, can naturally be compared to that of the modern nation state. However, this comparison reveals the missing critical element that denies the UN viability as such a governing body.
Since I am most familiar with the U.S. government I'll use it as a reference frame utilizing its three governmental branches: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.

We see laws made by the Legislative branch (UN Security Council), these laws are interpreted by the Judicial branch: this is definitely a fuzzy area internationally but perhaps we could use a world court (I know Europe has a bone to pique with the U.S. on this but let's say it exists and its rulings are considered valid and binding by all).
This leaves us with the Executive Branch. All nation states have all these elements in their government. Problems become apparent when these branches begin to blend together and no longer can counter balance each other to protect the governed. Saddam and Stalin held the monopolistic extreme and were thus dictators.

The Executive branch is charged with not only policing the governed to find the lawbreakers but also to effect their prosecution. In addition to punishment this also affords societal deterrence of future "crimes". It is this last necessary function of government the UN sorely lacks. The UN "peacekeeping force" is aptly named, for this force can only try to keep the peace. But how do we initially arrive at the peace involving two or more belligerents in current conflict?

In order to reach a point in a conflict where peace exists somebody must kick in the door, throw in the concussion grenade, and subdue the bad guys. Internationally, we need shock troops and true military power to accomplish this end. In this thread we have agreed to disagree about not only when to kick in the door but also why. However, being realists, surely we must agree that at some point it must be kicked in.

If we agree to the above necessary sequence of events to affect peace we seem to also disagree as to who does the "door kicking". But why this disagreement as to who will actually take action against these rogues?
In the case of Iraq, the U.S. felt it was justified on at least two moral grounds to act unilaterally: self-preservation and liberation of oppressed people. Both of these suggest a time sensitive solution: sooner is better than later, thus the American and British preference for their remedy.

I suspect those who opposed the U.S. actions do so not for moral reasons (obviously de-Saddamizing Iraq is a good thing- even the Iraqi people agree to this). This reason seems manifest when others refer to the U.S. as a bully or imperialist. This greater objection for the U.S.'s actions seems to be fear of its power and the fact it did not consult with its allies.
I submit the former is less a problem for the future of U.S. relations with the rest of the world than is the latter. This fear is further evidenced when one examines the answer to this question:

Given UN Security Council approved military action to disarm Iraq, what nation would have spearheaded the "Legal Coalition's" disarmament policing action? More importantly, would Europe feel any differently towards the U.S. given a "legal" mandate by the UN?

Respectfully,

JM