The US, UN & Iraq III

Ge, do you have a link to the Valentine piece?

Your excerpt (which is from the blog?) says this in part:



Fisk (of the Independent) was pointing out how tactically stupid was the killing of the Hussein brothers. Surely he will have a column about the immorality of such action as well.

a
http://www.counterpunch.org/

It is front page

I think a long stay was planned from the outset. The US is still consolidating its hold on Iraq. They will only let go very slowly and gradually once Iraq can be trusted to be a good oil friend of the US and no enemy of Israel. Actually if you leave aside all the slaughter that's not a bad plan.

The "If you can't find Osama..." discussion about the possible invasion of Iran was moving in the same direction as this one, which is why I'll repeat myself!, pasting in here a post from that discussion:

It's as well to remember that the position of Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan puts it in the way of the oil pipeline Halliburton has been trying to get through for years -- to China.

Oil, oil, oil! -- do we have to go back to oil? you ask. But isn't it just the damnedest coincidence that even as the Saudis and North Korea (in their own, very different ways) present genuine and unavoidable and urgent problems for the US, our resources are being spent in an area which is about to be very, very profitable for virtually every top member of the administration, an area which in reality (if not in the US media) presented a much smaller threat overall.

Is it not entirely possible that the truth of 9/11 is starting to show (as suspected early on by "crazies") that Afghanistan and Iraq had virtually nothing to do with it but that 9/11 provided the "intelligence" "justifying" (both very much in quotes!) going into both of those countries where we now remain.

Taliban? Nasty? Sure. But, as the blacked out 28 pages apparently show in the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was in fact operating out of Saudi, not Afghanistan. Keep on thinking about this. As one puts the pieces in place, one has to come to a very nasty conclusion (which is what I hope the bush administration will find itself in come November 2004).

One last question: Is the unbelievable inefficiency of the administration and Pentagon in handling and rebuilding post-war Iraq possibly deliberate? Could it be that the administration, counting on four more years, wants to make sure we remain in both invaded countries "for four years" (as Franks said) to protect not the people but to protect that much desired pipeline and the Little Businesses which grow up alongside it?

There's also some talk about the "illegal oil deals" made in Iraq (the ones with the Russians, among other things) that the WH says are invalid, but the Russians claim are.

The pipeline in Afghanistan has been mentioned on and off for a while, and a couple of times I even saw a map projection in the paper. The administration, with the cooperation of many (including the Saudis) has been able to keep all this quiet, through a web of interocking business deals giving profit to all. But there is something about this Iraq situation that has seemed to blow the cover off a lot of it. Maybe some participants feel they are being shafted (the British alliance has seemed smelly for a while - so much obsequiousness makes you wwonder what the Brits were promised), while the sluffing off of the French and the Germans seems a bit too pat. Everybody plays at wheels inside wheels, but it always takes a subtle, sure hand to make it work. The Bush babies have continued on, sure in theirknowledge that everything was going their way, which was the appointed way.

And then you have Jon Stewart, the comedian, who is watched by an ever increasing audience, who manages in his way to bring a lot of news to the public. Last night he had Joseph Wilson, the guy who reported back on the non-existent uranium (he mission was requested by Cheney's office). Wilson was terrific. And I thought about the audience for Comedy Central, and I realized - this is another group of voters who are probably never counted in the polling.

Hmm .. I dont think theres an essential difference - the release of both images served the same kind of purpose - but theres an obvious difference of, yeh, place on the scale, no?

The reason they showed the Uday and Qusay pictures is, obviously enough, that the Hussein family has acquired an aura of untouchability through its decades-long rule. Many Iraqis just won't believe they're actually, finally, dead, if its just a US Army press release. (Hell, even here the speculation whether they'd really been killed started up immediately).

This reason is summarised by one Iraqi's reaction, who, like many others, still didnt/couldnt believe it (and the quote also kind of puts the 'crudeness' of publishing the pictures in perspective):



So:
- Iraqi sympathisers of Saddam wouldn't have believed they were dead and thus wouldn't have lost any of their motivation to fight on;
- potential Iraqi sympathisers of an anti-Saddam government would have kept keeping their heads down in fear of future retaliations, for the same reason - not believing the Hussein family won't simply come back on top again later. It's fought itself out of tight corners before, and those who crowed victory too early had to pay for it harshly then.

I'd say those were convincing enough reasons to make this decision - both for the strategic and for the "good" cause.

Now the images of the dead American soldiers, and of the POWs, what was the rationale behind showing them?

I think that rationale was clear enough, too, and really quite comparable. The Pentagon at the time kept on repeating the war was going swell and casualties were minimal if not non-existent - and these images served to dismantle that propaganda. Though the Geneva conventions are important enough, the US furor at the time seemed a lot more to do with this, and came across as pretty opportunistic.

Still, they were just regular soldiers, who ended up in the desert through the bumbling policies of distant superiors. Uday and Qusay are different material - this was a dictator family, and the dictatorship wont really have dissapeared from people's heads until they physically see the whole family undeniably captured or dead. I think the scope of the "strategic purpose" that would justify violating the Geneva convention is of a significantly different scale in this case. <shrugs>

So, but, Frolic - you asked the rhetorical question - what do you think? I seem to remember you defended the publication of the images of the dead & captured American soldiers back then - so I would assume you have no problem with this American picture here, either, no? I mean, it'd be a bit strange to accuse the US government of hypocrisy&inconsistency if you'd have reversed your opinion on the matter in the opposite direction, no? Or is there a good reason why that picture was OK, but this one isn't?

The mortuary-prepared corpses are being showed--over and over--on MSNBC at the moment.

Their beards have been shaved, the wound in Uday's face has been patched with embalmer's putty--in short, they are made to appear more as they did from photos taken when they were alive.

Is the administration working a little too hard to make their case--again?

LOL!

Quick question - is showing the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay a breach of Geneva conventions ?

Re: Execution


Ahum.

OK, ok, point well taken: if you take the invasion itself as an illegal act of unjustified war, then the determination to capture the Husseins, by extension, isn't legally justified either (they should have referred the case to the ICC first), and the price the US put on their heads then becomes a sheer gutspah. OK.

But damn, what sloppy rhetorics, otherwise. I mean, for one, turn the tables around. If Iraq had invaded America, and the Bush family was running and hiding (say, in Utah) - would you expect the Iraqi troops to do anything else but try to hunt him down? I mean, apart from whether you'd be happy about it - could you reasonably expect them to do anything else?

So, its logical enough, in the current situation, that the US wants to hunt down Saddam. And not just Saddam, but his sons too. And heres where the rhetorics are sloppy again, because from where the comparison with the Bush daughters? The Hussein sons fulfilled important government jobs. They wielded great power in the Ba'athist dictatorship. Furthermore, Uday is probably hated even more than Saddam himself for the wanton way in which he has raped, tortured and killed random numbers of Iraqis with a sadistic fervour that goes beyond even totalitarian logic. So its not quite the most appropriate comparison.

Now what most of us would have wanted to see, I'd guess, is for the US to have arrested those men, and preferably extradited them to crimes against humanity procedures at the International Criminal Court. (Thats aside from those who just want the Americans to leave, right now, unconditionally, and leave Iraq like it is ..) The last half of that suggestion is a non-starter, of course (alas). Leaves the arrest. Why did they kill them, instead? There's a lot of furor here, and in Mosul, too, even. But was it "cold-blooded murder"?

From what I've read, the initial raid was pretty small-scale. When demanding the men to surrender, they were shot at instead, and called in reinforcements. After those arrived, the attack was so massive that death resulted almost unavoidably. Still, the reports say that they stopped shooting twice, going inside the house to see of the men would surrender, but renewed the attack when they were shot at. Not quite cold-blooded murder, thus.

Still, even if they were still shot at, why not beleaguer the house, instead? Like they do when some kidnapper got a kid in his flat or his car, and the cops surround him and a 24-hour stand-off ensues (hey, I watch the movies)? And the being shot at - 'ccording to the reports, the second time they went in, there was "only one person shooting left inside, presumably the 14-year old son of Qusay, Mustapha" - couldnt they have dealt with him, at least, in a regular way?

The article suggests bad intentions - a policy of assassination. But really, is that a given? The Husseins have escaped so often, so narrowly, even when the US was sure they had hit them - always just out again, through their tunnels or whichever - wouldnt be unreasonable if the Americans themselves fell victim to the myth of the "untouchable" Husseins, too. Now just imagine, if Uday and Qusay had escaped from there. Imagine! The derision, across the world, the ridicule - the total discreditation of the US efforts in Iraq that wouldve been attributed in the world's press - and, more portentously, among Iraqis themselves, who would quickly have lost all belief that the US would ever win (and would thus be exponentially less inclined to co-operate). There was a LOT at stake there! A sense of panicked urgency must have had a lot to do with the overkill - they could not let these men escape.

So, the conclusion could just as well be, the Hussein sons were killed to prevent loss of face. In a panic overkill meant to make sure that, this time, they would not fail. Not good either. But a systematic policy of targeted assassination that is not.

Dunno. Good question. I kinda went on the assumptions here that it would be, but yeh, if not, then there's even less reason to bash the US gvt over the head with the comparison Frolic made.

Interesting excerpt from Salam Pax's blog, btw - thanks Ge'!

Nimh,

I dont recall myself defending the publication of the images of the dead & captured American soldiers back then. I only said it was hypocrite of the US army to say the broadcasting was in breach of the Geneva convention while we in the West saw Iraqi casualties on a daily basis. We even saw them shot live on TV.

Its quite simple: Parading dead bodies of killed enemies is just not done! If you make exceptions on this universal rule you'll get Americans dragged through the streets. Because there always will be a good reason to show off your trophies of war!

I dont think the geneva convention makes any difference between regular soldiers, generals or sons of.... regarding the treatement they should receive. I belief in our Western System of Justice. executions
without any trial, Blood Revenge,... Thats Turning back the clock to the middle-ages. People learn from their errors. Accumulated wisdom.

Even the Nazis were trialed! And compared with Hitler, Saddam is a little boy! BTW, as far as i know, the sons of Saddam were high rank officers in the official Army of Iraq. Legally there is even no justification to assisinate them without giving them the opportunity to surrender.

Of course i understand the rationele of showing those pictures. Of course i aknowledge the atrocities of the Saddam regime. But i still refuse to see this war in Iraq as a legal action and i still refuse to belief the US army went in to save lives or help the Iraqis out. National Armies serve national interests! If Bush is such a obstinate selfless, altruistic, good and honest man, only interested in the wellbeing of the world population? Why hasn't he send troops into Liberia. And if killing your own people is your criterium for invading souvereign states. Why are people still dying Chechnya? Why are people still being killed all over Africa?

Nimh, thanks for your post about taking out the Hussein sons. It made me think.

frolic, We can't use logic to figure out this president. His rhetoric has too many hidden agendas, and most Americans are buying. c.i.

nimh,

You and I don't always agree on things but one has a hard time disagreeing on conclusions drawn from your posts. Your last few posts on this thread are well balanced and valued for their clarity.

Thanks again,

JM

deleted, double post

Fair enough. You would condemn the images in either case, back then by the Iraqis, now by the Americans. That's consistent. I don't remember you condemning the Iraqi side for showing those pictures then, but hell, that dont say much, I sure dont remember all posts here! And its true, I also dont remember you saying it was good that they showed them - just that the Americans had no right/reason to complain about it.



For sure. Only question is whether this did indeed constitute an execution, let alone "blood revenge". Because,



they were given the opportunity to surrender.



Hey, just like you never defended the atrocities of the Iraqi regime, I never argued that Bush was acting out of "selfless, altruistic, good and honest" motives, so you're argueing that case to the wrong man here - I agree <grins>.

I do think some extent of "killing your own people" should be a criterium for justifying an invasion. Thats why I can imagine having supported a war against Iraq, if not this one. And yes, that would mean defending similar military interventions in other countries with similar situations. It's exactly the pick-and-choose attitude of the US government about using the "humanitarian" banner when it comes to argueing interventions, that makes me so distrustful about them. A UN "intervention force" would be my choice, with a set of UN-agreed criteria of when their use is allowed.

But sometimes there can be at least relative benefits in even haphazard, egoistic, hypocritical military interventions that borrow the humanitarian banner. The damage that the US did to the UN and its evolving multilateral system of action against crimes against humanity and humanitarian emergency situations has been done. But that doesnt mean that anything the US now does in Iraq is by definition bad, illegal, condemnable - that's where I differ with the stance that condemns any & every single US plan and action in Iraq purely on the basis that its presence there is illegal in the first place. Remember the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia - that was as illegal as any. But it did rid the country of Pol Pot's mass murderers. So I follow the American occupation of Iraq with suspicion, but I dont shed no tears about Uday or the pictures of his corpse, and I dont immediately assume an evil strategy of political assassination either.

Oh, and thanks to the others for the compliments!

[quote="nimh]For sure. Only question is whether this did indeed constitute an execution, let alone "blood revenge". Because,

they were given the opportunity to surrender.
[/quote]

Says who? Donald Rumsfeld? If that man got a dollar for every lie he told us, he would be number one on Forbes' annual list of the richest people,............for the next Trillenium!

Call me suspicious, call me sceptic but Donald Rumsfeld isn't the man i have in mind when i hear the words honest, trustworthy and truth-telling!

In may the WSJ reported Uday was considering to surrender to US forces. Why was the house not besieged for a couple of days.

If people run out of food and water, are kept awake for several days,..... the chance they'll surrender is much higher.

frolic,

Do you propose taht every single person who shoots at US forces be surrounded for days?