The US, UN & Iraq III

All the old protest songs still work Setanta, we never learn - it is so sad :sad:

Once again the economist calls it the way it is.

Show me the way to go home
Aug 14th 2003
From The Economist print edition


"War lite" is all very well. Empire lite is a mistake

EMPIRES are born in funny ways, and sometimes, via the law of unintended consequences, by accident. In his 1998 declaration of war against "Jews and Crusaders", Osama bin Laden said his aim was to force America's armies to depart "shattered and broken-winged from all the lands of Islam". So far he has achieved the opposite. Within less than two years of the felling of the twin towers, America has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, with a combined population of more than 50m. If this has surprised Mr bin Laden, it may be no less of a surprise to America itself. Who expected the colony that started its own national life by casting off the empire of George III to end up running a far-flung Muslim Dominion of Iraqistan?

However it happened, Americans are not enjoying it much (see article). The Afghan war of 2001 and the Iraq war this spring were walkovers, costing between them a grand total of fewer than 150 American lives. For the superpower, if not its adversaries, this has been "war lite". But staying on has been less of a breeze. For one thing, some of the locals do not seem to know when they are beaten: nearly 60 Americans have been killed in Iraq since George Bush declared the end of major fighting. For another, it is expensive: the fighting alone has already cost American taxpayers some $65 billion. On some estimates, rebuilding the country could add anything up to $600 billion. To top it all, Iraqistan is not the very feather a self-respecting empire would choose for its cap. Iraq minus Saddam and Afghanistan minus the Taliban are better off than they were before these subtractions. But both are still a mess.

Reluctance good, incompetence bad
America and empire
Aug 14th 2003
Afghanistan's future
Aug 14th 2003
Policing Iraq
Aug 14th 2003

Iraq, United States

War in Iraq

Wars

Afghanistan's troubles

White House




Given this, it is not hard to see why in America itself the champions of "neo-imperialism" are now being drowned out by voices clamouring for an early exit. Nor is it any disgrace. Mr Bush said all along that America went to Iraqistan in order to defend itself, and would leave these places the moment its job was done. What would be a disgrace is to cut and run before then. It is on the whole a good thing for both America and the world that the superpower is a reluctant imperialist. An incompetent imperialist is bad for everybody.

Has America been incompetent? At first glance, you could almost make a reasonable case that in Afghanistan it has done moderately well. That country is now more or less at peace; an Afghan government exists; a constitution is being written; NATO has taken over control of the international peacekeeping force in Kabul; and America's own garrison has been reduced to a minimum. The trouble is that all these accomplishments are either fragile or incomplete (see article). The south of the country is still too dangerous for aid workers to work in. The government's writ does not extend much beyond Kabul. Local warlords, deep into the heroin trade, wield the real power. The Americans may have deprived Mr bin Laden's men of a safe haven. But Afghanistan remains a failed or non-existent state, still capable in the future of visiting its failures violently upon the West.

America's (and Britain's) post-war performance in Iraq is harder to defend. Even allowing for the scale of the task, they have made a botch of things so far. Americans are famous not only for having supposedly limitless resources but also for their energy, can-doism and powers of improvisation. And yet, three months into the occupation, a scorching Iraq is still waiting for reliable supplies of power and clean water. The occupation authorities have created a Governing Council of Iraqis. Although broadly representative of Iraq's tribes and factions, this body is, however, the unelected creature of the Americans and British, consisting for the most part of returning exiles. It is a transitional achievement, at best.

So what has gone wrong? A common explanation from the superpower's critics is that the Americans are paying the price of "unilateralism". Had the Iraq war been waged under the banner and with the authority of the United Nations, they say, many more countries would now be helping to put the place back together. Of a score of countries with troops in Iraq, a mere 13,000 come from 19 countries and the 148,000 others are American. Many more countries share an interest in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. But since the Americans insisted on going it alone, argue some of those holding back, they can jolly well sort out the mess by themselves.

This is not quite fair. Had the Americans waited for the Security Council's authority (and Mr Bush did try for it), Iraqis would probably still be squirming under the dictator's heel. But since the war the Americans have indeed been excessively reluctant to give up a little of their own authority in Iraq so that the UN might have a little more. Though the Security Council has its own man in Iraq, his powers are vague and it is America's proconsul, Paul Bremer, who calls the shots. The present arrangement has the merit of giving America control of a situation for which America will in the end anyway be blamed. But why not seek a new resolution that tweaks the balance enough to encourage more countries to lend a hand?

Do it right, then go

Putting a sturdier international umbrella over America's accidental empire should not be seen as just a way to defray the costs. It would help in many other ways. In Iraq in particular, it might reassure those who say that America is interested only in plundering their oil. In Afghanistan, the presence of a muscular Office of the High Representative, like the one that was created for Bosnia (and backed by a muscular peacekeeping force), would have helped Hamid Karzai's government to impose his will on the warlords. But internationalisation is not, by itself, a panacea. In the end, only America has the military and economic heft to ensure a decent outcome in these places. And, in a paradox, those Americans now clamouring for an exit from Iraqistan should be pushing their government to do much more in its new dominions, not less.

America succeeded at "war lite". But it would be an error to follow up with what a Canadian writer, Michael Ignatieff, has called "empire lite". Even an unwanted empire is an empire, and hard to run on the cheap. Iraqistan requires the urgent application of more money, attention and ingenuity than America has invested so far. This need not mean staying for "the long haul", as people say. It is possible that by doing more now, America may be able to pull out sooner. The key is to make enough of an effort now to ensure that these places will remain stable when the empire goes home.

The needs of the two places are not identical. The priorities for Iraq are to raise an effective local police force and put together a clear plan and timetable for a constitutional assembly and the election of a government that Iraqis will see as their own. Afghanistan needs more peacekeepers. In Bosnia in 1995, as soon as peace was agreed, America, Britain and France inserted 60,000 peacekeepers. By contrast, the whole of Afghanistan, a country 12 times the area with seven times the population, has only 5,000 or so troops providing security, plus another 12,000 or so mopping up the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. What folly. Failed states that are allowed to fail again will just have to be rescued again, if they are not to become a renewed threat to the security of the West.






OPINION | WORLD | BUSINESS | FINANCE & ECONOMICS | SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
PEOPLE | BOOKS & ARTS | MARKETS & DATA | DIVERSIONS | PRINT EDITION

1963 Set ...... 1963

Masters of War
Bob Dylan


Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead


Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music

mamajuana, perhaps doubt is beginning to creep in, even among the powerful.

As these few paragraphs from blatham's Super Duper Power show:




perception, I read that article last week and thought it excellent.

REQUIEM FOR THE MASSES - The Association - (September 1967)

Your flag is flying full,
At half mast for the matadors,
Who turned their backs to please the crowd,
And all fell before the bull.

Black and white were the figures that recorded him,
Black and white was the newsprint he was mentioned in.
Black and white was the question that so bothered him.

He never asked, he was taught not to ask,
What was on his lips as they buried him.

The U.S. envoy to the U.N. was killed in the blast.
Same link as above.

Explosion at UN headquarters in Baghdad----Gee I'll bet it burned about 50 new white range rovers. Iraqis know who their enemies are----they watched Kofi Anon syphon off about 12 $ BILLION of their money during the "oil for food program" while they starved.

This is hot off the wire and I must share it with you

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec,
5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan

In all the years I have been reading and hearing about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, I do not recall anyone claimig Hussein was anything but a bad man. Nor that he was not interested in developing destructive weapons. This was well known. Unfortunately, the same has been said and is true of so many other people and places in the world. We have long known about North Korea, and Saudi Arabaia, and Liberia, --- all over the world.

There are some differences regarding the Bush administration's thinking about the Iraqis. We knew - Clinton, Kerry, Rudman, Clark - so many others. We studied the situation in depth, discussed with each other and world leaders, looked at and feared many of the happenings, and decided upon what seemed to be the best course of action -for the rest of the world- to take. In most cases, this took the form of sanctions, diplomatic weavings, containment. The idea was to try to contain the violence as best as possible while showing these madmen dictators that their actions were not without consequences. And this policy worked for a long time. Containment was workable. There was much we couldn't prevent - we kept dealing in arms with Hussein ourselves.

Realistically, on any given day of the week, somewhere in the world men are killing each other, children are starvibg, women are raped, villages set aflame, starvation is rampant. This is enough to cause deep and prolonged despair, and efforts to try to do something to help.

But the Bush people (for reasons becoming clearer, and they are nowhere near the altruistic ones set forth in the beginning) led us into an unwilling war. And they did this by lying and cheating to us and the rest of the world, by destroying the lives and reputations of many good people who tried to disagree, and by putting more and more of our blameless troops under fire. They have created a sinkhole.

And rather than assume responsibility for any part in this, or trying to rebuild a country they destroyed, they play two games. One is the blame game, and the other is the ecclusion game. Halliburton wins out there. What I wonder is who pays Halliburton? By not putting out bids, opening up the reconstruction to the free market, do we, as taxpayers, pay full price for this?

It seems to me that we as the people are the losers. We are forced to endure a war we didn't want, don't see as right, don't see any benefit from. And it is costing us big. Everytime another serviceman dies, it is one of us. Everytime we read about projected cost of the war, we see more and more educational and recreational programs disappearing.

What are we gaining from this? How do we balance the gains from the losses? Meanwhile, we have a president who is so unconcerned that a month's vacation is more important than what is happening (and he should be there to receive the news, to decide on actions, to be a presidential leader presence), a vice president on vacation in Colorado they can't seem to find. Who's minding the store? Andrew Card?

Mama
well written reply----have a little patience---Vietnam lasted at least 7 years----we've been in Iraq less that 6 months. Bush has put his job on the line----if he is proven wrong come Nov 2004 he's history. If the Dems win (and I don't care which one wins) he will revert to the same program in Iraq because he knows we must.

It doesn't matter what the candidates say now----they will start talking out of the other side of their mouth after the election should one win.

I should hardly think you'd wish to hang your argument on a comparison to Vietnam. By the way, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed in 1965, when we already had troops there, and it was in 1973 that troops were finally, and gradually, "phased out." Our involvement in Vietnam lasted for a good deal longer than seven years.

Of course, it is refreshing to see that a conservative can see the very real similarities between that quagmire and this one.

Once again, entered a theater of war without a policy in place - gees, when will we learn! The similarities are astounding.

NPR is doing a report on the bombing of the UN building in Baghdad as i type. Apparently, a CBS crew was filming a piece in the building at the time of the bomb's explosion. It is all very chilling.

I can always count on you to fill the blanks regarding history----

There isn't much similarity between sand and jungle------Also there is no political sanctuary for the enemy to operate from as in North Vietnam----remember we could not destroy their capability to wage war which is one of the major tenets required to destroy the enemy.and for victory.

The war that we are losing is the one for the hearts and minds-----apparently we don't even have a 24/7 tv station. That may be because Rumsfeld has taken such a beating from the press about managing the news or any form of propaganda machine. Personally I would keep the press in pig pens and feed them garbage. What useful are they contributing except acting as Saddams guerrillas, feeding the folks back home only the bad news which is just one more form of propaganda.
Only it's the propaganda of the left wing. Saddam keeps laughing and saying yeah man if I can just hold out for another month I'll win.

Sorry, your quagmire theory is a long run from reality-----only a desperate grasp by those who want to see us fail in Iraq .

I would opine that Syria and Iran could potentially be, or already are, "political sanctuaries."

See us fail in Iraq? At what do you suggest we aim to succeed? What i don't want to see, is more dead Americans and Iraqis. As for what the press reports, they continue to talk about the American death toll, still well under 100 killed, but no one mentions that over a thousand have been wounded. This was a bad idea, poorly executed, with no plan beyond a glorious drive on Baghdad. Chickens are coming home to roost, but i'm sure you'll persist in casting this as a politically polarized view, and trying to suggest that i somehow wish to see us "fail." Again, precisely at what is it that you contend the Shrub's crew of self-interested crooks wish to succeed? Democracy? Got any evidence that this is being implemented on a large scale? Finding weapons of mass destruction? I doubt that even you would claim that's a reasonable goal at this point, although you could surprise me there. Oh yeah, i remember now. Iraq was to be a shining beacon to the rest of the Middle East for the blessings of American-style democracy. Kinda takin' their time on that one, aren't they.

perception - you really have no idea what I said, do you?

Bush had no job to put on the line If you start with that fallacious argumet, then you have no argument.

Do you understand what this thing is all about? This isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was an existing situation, first entered into by the French (who also suffered disastrous consequences there). This is a totally different set-up, and one of the things that happened to us was that a large part of the world saw it for exactly the phony, greedy set-up it was. That's why we have no friends now to help us and no prestige to back us up and no money to prop up what is and will be a failing economy.

Let me be plain. Iraq presented the easiest target in the Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney, Libby, etc. plan to become dominant in the rich oil-producing area known as the mid-east. And it was long-planned. Simple research will show you that.

But in their arrogance, this bunch (who had George Bush as a willing dupe) never bothered to learn some fundamentals, because they already knew it all. So, after much conniving and playing with words, they concocted a story about how we were in imminent danger from the Iraqis, and told America they should be afraid, that we had to go to war. And they couldn't make up stories fast enough. And they knew they'd always have the perceptions around to believe and defend them.

So they created a stage, and sent thousands of innocents to fight a war that wasn't. Didn't you think it was strange that there was no fighting back? Didn't you wonder what Saddam was up to? Or did you, like they, assume in arrogant ignorance, that it was fear of the mighty U.S.?

Jesus, we created a fake war, fought an army that wasn't, destroyed a country and its utilities, have made more enemies than before... and you dare criticize those of us who care about this? Loyal Americans who care about their country really do. They don't just give lip service. And they certainly don't go blindly along with people at the top who obviously don't give a fig about them. They bother to educate themselves, to find out, and to disagree when something is wrong, and try to do smething about it.

Patience? For what? For the army to crush the Iraqis into the earth? Because that's how we'll get their oil. Do you care about that? Because I do, and I think there are better ways.

mamaj, Well said - as usual. Most Americans still don't believe they've been duped into this war. Now that we're there for the Iraqi people, I guess all the justifications for this war can now be dumped. How disgusting! c.i.

Viva La Revolucion.

Fifty years ago today, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah in his place, setting into motion a chain of events which would eventually lead to the revolution in 1979 and the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism in the region--and therefore, arguably, to the events of September 11, 2001.

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and as any small town sherriff will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

(A good book on the subject is All The Shah's Men, by Stephen Kinzer.)

'Snide' doesn't make for much of a rebuttal. I'm sure Hanoi and Baghdad are in different time zones also. You fail to make any point here.



Yes, indeed. THAT ought to really win them over.

perception, you let your Dale Carnegie correspondence diploma expire again, didn't you? :wink:

PDid, Thanks for the laugh: "perception, you let your Dale Carnegie correspondence diploma expire again, didn't you?" c.i.