Surely, Craven, you do not support the fall-back-rationale, put forth when all else had failed to convince, that the administration's real motive was "liberating the Iraqi people"? A country that can conspire to fly planes into buildings (not that I believe we did, but we could have) could have managed to get rid of one dictator without destroying a country.
I do not accept the appeal to pity as the motivation for war.
But I still wouldn't pass your test.
The test being belief in other causes than our own selfish interests and to gain control of the Middle East?
Yes. It's pretty limiting and plus it carries a value laden "selfish".
See, even if it were with the motivation of helping it can be construed as selfish. Anything can.
You'd better change your name to Craven De SpooK
...
I just finished reading an article in the latest Economist:
MANIFEST DESTINY WARMED UP?
AUGUST 14TH 2003
It is too long to patch in here, but it is worth getting a copy of the 16-22nd August issue to read. You can pull it up at economist.com, but you will have to pay $2.95 or such to read it.
You are right about the word "selfish," Craven. Everything we do is selfish. If one is made happy by doing things for others, his motivation is his own happiness or satisfaction or self-interest derived from seeing other people bettered. The world is lucky if a person or a nation finds its happiness in seeking others' benefit. N'est-ce pas?
It was the strawberries I tell ya .... as soon as I find that key I'll prove it to ya...the strawberries
While this may not fit into the conversation I feel it it well said and need be said ..................
[This is an answer of sorts to an email I got from Rachel, thanks R.]
This has actually been giving me sleepless nights; people interpret everything I say in a thousand different ways. And the problem is that I am not exactly very clear about how I feel about the war and occupation to myself, how am I to explain this to all the people who read this and the article in the Guardian.
G's incident has created a bit of a problem and the stone throwers on both sides have their stash ready to start throwing the moment it goes on the web.
I am not a spokesman for anyone. That is mainly why I don't answer media requests. The guardian said I can write what I want and it won't be them will be asking me about my opinion on this and that. I just had the good fortune to know decent English and know enough about western culture to be able to connect with the mostly western readers.
After the last article I wrote in the Guardian I was wondering whether I should stop whining. the problem is that people want to read that things are getting better and we are happy, but things are getting better in such a slow pace that it is almost imperceptible, and with the one step we move forward on one front we move back 3 steps on other fronts. People need to know that their kids and loved ones are here for a good reason and this is what they want to hear. Otherwise they send me emails saying that I am being part of the problem. They send me emails telling me that I should help the Americans capture the terrorists and Baathists, as if they walk around in the streets wearing signs. Maybe we Iraqis did expect too much from the American invasion, we did hope there is going to be an easy way. Get rid of Saddam and have the Americans help us rebuild. I don't think like that anymore. I am starting to believe that the chaos we will go thru the next 5 or 10 years is part of the price we will *have* to pay to have our freedom. This Beirut-ification is the way to learn how we should live as a free country and respect each other; it is just too painful to admit. It is too painful to have to admit that the [burn it down to build it up] process is what we will have to go thru. There is an Arabic poet who wrote a line which my friend Raed had burned into my memory:
This nation needs to learn lessons in destruction.
Don't get this wrong, he meant iconoclasm, destroying what has been set in stone to rebuild new rules. When talking to Ghaith about what happened to him he said that he doesn't want this to sound that he is against their presence here.
But I used to feel safe when around them, if it looked like trouble go stand by the Americans but now I don't feel this safe anymore. I hated myself for having the same feelings and fear when I was being detained by the Americans as when I was being detained by the Iraqis. I was worried about the space they would put me in and was hoping someone I know would come by so that I don't just disappear.
someone somewhere wrote that if it were the old regime he and his family and friends would have to worry about their safety. I do need to say that the people who are arrested by the Americans on check points disappear just as they used to do before; this was one of Ghaith's fears. The Red Cross has access but it is slow. And it takes the Americans ages to "process" you. I am not whining these are facts. Check the Human Rights Watch reports. And Ghaith's issue should be seen as a broader issue, journalism and this war. This is not the first time a journalist has been harassed by the military. A British friend and an Iraqi who were out reporting got detained for five hours for filming a tank, the film confiscated and of course the Iraqi reporter gets the rougher treatment, the british has the passport to protect her.
And NO it was not a super secret facility.
Yes I know, before you say it this is what I am saying, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I am a crybaby and a whiner as some like to describe me. Whatever. And I am keeping my anonymity because I want to, most of you do that as well. Sometimes what I have written and still writing puts me in awkward situations with people I must talk to now and then, and I don't feel very safe about voicing my opinions about certain parties and groups. We still don't have a First Amendment.
Ghaith keeps insisting that what has happened to him is a small price to pay to get rid of saddam, but you see this is a bright young man talking. And he knows the difference between general policies and the individual reaction of a soldier who feels all Iraqis around him are out to get them. I am slowly reconciling myself to the idea that the Coalition forces will pull out in a year's time (around election time I would say) and we will be left here to learn a lesson in rebuilding. I hope the UN will still be around.
Kara--
You haven't been reading at all if you think my comment was arrogant in the least.
If the former brutal, murderous regime can be replaced by a government by, of and for the Iraqi people, it will surely be a great thing. Reasons for the war were not included in that statement. I am not thinking of how it will play in the short-term, or politically. I am thinking of how the change will be viewed in the long-term, regardless of the catalyst.
"Actually, the democratization of a rather substantial portion of real estate, smack dab in the middle of the most turbulent, violent area in the world may go down in history as one of the most significant achievements in the last fifty years--if we can pull it off. Not everyone had such short-sighted ambitions, whether they are judged right or wrong."
Who are we to impose "democratization" on any "substantial portion of real estate, smack dab in the middle of the most turbulent, violent area in the world," or otherwise?
That's reminicent of the imperialist Brits who saw themselves as bringing "civilization" to the "savages" of the non-European world.
Although, if we can pull it off, I would not complain!
Who are we to impose our idea of government "by, of and for the people" onto the Iraqi people?
Trying to envision a positive outcome to this whole mess. Anyway, nap time for teh hobbit. Class tomorrow, German proficiency exam in the afternoon. Press your thumbs for me, everyone!
Infrablue--
My statement, as I said before, doesn't bring the catalyst into the equation. Geopolitical changes have begun with assassinations-which led to horrible war--which led to new and arguably better global realities. I am not rehashing how it began--I am talking about how it may end.
Codswallop? Oh, that's good, kara.
Having read the last several sections of this, I'm curious. Why do you think we went into Iraq? I mean, your prez himself gave at least three different reasons, one after another as each failed. And in the PNAC site they do sort of detail a reason for going there years ago - and it wasn't any such wonderful thing as democratization - they say it very plainly - oil. Who says it? Well, Rummy, Cheney, Libbey, Perle, Wolfowitz all those names saying stuff today. It's all there. Just has to be looked up.
I hope, sofia, you are saying your thing about real estate as a pie-in-the sky hope, because so far it looks like just that. And if history holds any lessons, this Iraqi experiment will not be looked upon kindly.
Also, whatever happened to David Kay? Wasn't he supposed to report some wonderful findings a few weeks ago? Or has he quietly folded his tent and gone away?
I'm not questioning the catalyst (you are referring to the invasion and occupation, right?).
I'm questioning your faith in the imposition of democratization and government of, by and for the people onto the Iraqi people.
What if they want to be Islamic socialists? Why shouldn't they be merely because the occupiers won't allow for that?
Remember the man the CIA and State asked to go to Niger to see if the yellow cake purchase story was true? Well, here's an opinion from him. Note what he says will be the WH cry on bringing home the troops......
“The American Approach is Incoherent”
An Interview with Joseph Wilson
By Pascal Riche
La Liberation
Wednesday 20 August 2003
A private consultant today, in 1991 Ambassador Joseph Wilson was chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, and, in this position, the last American diplomat to have met with Saddam Hussein. He revealed that in the beginning of 2002 he had made a report of an inquiry demonstrating the implausibility of the alleged Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger invoked by President Bush to justify the war.
Do the Americans lack troops in Iraq?
I’m more of the view we should trust our military, who, following the example of General Eric Shinseki (who just left as head of the US Army, en) estimate that “several hundred” thousand men would be necessary in Iraq. But what is particularly lacking are forces properly trained for internal security, that is to say, policemen. The United States is poorly equipped: there’s no national police system in the United States such as the gendarmerie. The FBI is only an investigatory agency. The American administration should solicit other countries’ expertise to put a peace-keeping system in place, but it doesn’t seem to be taking this route.
With the approach of elections, pressure for a pullout of American troops will increase. Can it succeed?
President Bush articulated a vision, the establishment of a pro-Western democracy in Iraq. But I’m under the impression the administration is getting ready to change its criteria for victory. The publicized obsession with finding Saddam Hussein is a sign of it. I’m afraid that starting next spring we’ll hear the following speech: “We’ve liberated the country, killed the tyrant, and given the Iraqis the tools to create their own democracy. It’s time to bring home our soldiers.” Unfortunately, that’s not the way to construct a democracy. It takes time.
Why is the United States encountering so many problems?
The Iraqis are under the impression they’re being occupied. And a country that feels itself occupied always gives birth to resistance movements. It’s not because they detested Saddam Hussein that Iraqis are going to make friends with foreign invaders. For 25 million Iraqis, the Americans and the British are above all the ones who imposed economic sanctions on them for twelve years. The approach being followed is incoherent, from the refusal to ask for a UN resolution to internationalize the undertaking, to the idea of putting Ahmed Chalabi (a pro-American Shiite exile, en) in the middle of the political game… From the beginning we should have done everything to guarantee two key elements: the population’s security and well-being (electricity, water, garbage disposal, medicine…). It was necessary that the Iraqis feel an improvement in their lives. Only on that condition could they have offered themselves the luxury of considering a new system of government...
Does the Bush Administration seek to assure the security and improvement of living conditions for Iraqis?
I don’t see the political will for it. It would be necessary to organize a massive injection of medical aid, food… Everything under international auspices, because, to succeed, we’ve got to get out of this occupation mentality and convince the Iraqis that it’s an international project. Instead, we still hesitate to return to the United Nations. The President ought to allow the State Department to advance on a multinational level, to hold serious discussions with the other actors in the region, and, in Europe, with the Germans and the French…
The Shiite majority seems overall to accept the American presence…
What we’re seeing in the South is more, in my view, a tactical cease fire. It will take time for the Shiite clergy to consolidate their power in the South. They can let the Americans be in charge of the war against the Sunnis. When the Americans don’t find any more Sunnis to kill, the Shiites will figure that they’ve sufficiently consolidated their power and that they’re ready to take over their responsibilities in Baghdad.
Is there a way to evaluate the size of the “resistance movement” against the Americans?
Saddam Hussein could count on about 400,000 men in the armed forces, including the Fedayyin. If we’ve killed 10% of them, that leaves 350,000 men with a certain sense of military organization, the vast majority of whom are Sunni. They were in power for decades. It’s in their interest to return to it, or at least to resist “the invaders” and Shiite ambitions.
Is the “Balkanization” of Iraq one of the scenarios envisaged by Washington?
In their writings the neoconservatives never talk about “democratization”, but only about the fall of the regime. Have they truly absorbed the fact that it would be necessary to stay in Iraq a long time to assure its democratization? Or would they satisfy themselves with a country cut in three between Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, weakened for the long term by its own squabbles? One may wonder…
Not so much pie in the sky. It is one of two possibilities. Democratization will succeed, or fail.
I didn't count it as a reason for war. But, a very nice by-product.
It seems clear to me that nay-sayers are unrealistically impatient. These things don't happen seamlessly, or overnight. If it is accomplished, the positive impact across the region and the world will be dramatic. How could anyone not be pulling for a self-ruled Iraq?
I do subscribe to the domino theory, and think a self-ruling Iraq would strengthen the freedom movement in Iran, and neighbors would demand self-rule, as well. And, I also buy into this trend as smashing out the scourge of terrorism, Islamic style. All of this may not be acheived in my lifetime--but every journey begins with the first step.
