The US, UN & Iraq III

book mark.

Damned inconvenient to save the seventh largest museum in the world, "comparable in size to the Louvre in Paris" ?

How many billions of dollars, how many priceless treasures were destroyed? I wouldn't be surprised if the entire cost of the war so far is overshadowed by the value of that one building.

It's not unreasonable to expect chaos and losses during war. EXACTLY the reason why war should be conducted with extreme care to protect the priceless, if it is conducted at all. Play with fire, you're consciously inviting disaster.

I fear for our reputation -- if people around the world start associating the U.S. with cultural genocide.

Timber wrote:



Tell me ...... what part of this conflict do you give 'the younger' credit for .... or would you rather wait several years til we get set up then make the assumption.

Who do you consider the 'opposition'?

You should know the facts beforeyou begin tagging people .....

My youngest, Jeffery, served in dessert storm ..... that put ten years on me, but I never told him. Where is Jeffery today? Some where in Iraq, in harms way, his life on the line for Bush's 'free the oppressed, regimen change, WMD destroying political Jihad'

Don't you think that if a man stands to die, he should know why? And don't you think ....... I guess I know what you think.

I do mean it, Timber, when I say that you are better in military strategy matters than I am, so until somebody comes with other information I'll take your word for it that "the buildings secured and the buildings looted show a logical correspondence to the actual route-of-advance taken as US troops entered the city".

Your point about the astounding success of this war in military terms, even compared with Gulf War 1, is well taken also.

The point about a drop in terrorism is still a bit far-fetched. Nothing big since Bali, no, but then that kind of thing doesnt really happen every three months, does it. Much too early to measure what impact this war has had.

As for the many other Capitalised Blanket Statements about such entities as "The Average Iraqi", "The Attack on Iraq" and "The Pessimists [and] the entire Opposition" (what world view is it that is reflected in the language of CNN taglines?), all I can do is take some at face value, and check as many others against the facts as I can humanly do. For example, you write:



Schroeder's SPD, for sure, may have been doing lousily in the polls since, well, pretty much the aftermath of the elections (which he won on his position on Iraq, the US and war) - but the last weeks certainly do not seem to suddenly have turned that position into a disadvantage.

Compare, for example, the polls of 28.03 (when developments in Iraq still seemed to underscore the doubts about the war) with those of 11.04 (when near-victory already seemed certain). 28 March, government coalition partners SPD and Greens were at 30% and 11%. 11 April, they were at 31% and 11%.

Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister who became that much better known still when he passionately contradicted Powell, "is and remains the most beloved German politician", with a baffling 82% favorability rating. The pro-American Christian Democrat leader Angela Merkel and her collague Edmund Stoiber, on the other hand, both score 42%, a mere 2% higher than Schroeder himself - who gained three points in those two weeks. (See http://www.emnid.tnsofres.com/presse/ntv/main-ntv.html)

As for Chirac, a Sofres-Le Figaro opinion poll published on April 4 had Chirac with a confidence rating of 60% - up 5% compared to the month before (see www.lemonde.fr). Even last Sunday, 55% of the polled French still thought the US had been wrong to intervene in Iraq, with only 37% now thinking it'd been right (http://www.ifop.com/europe/sondages/opinionf/guerreirak3.asp).

How one measures Putins favorability rating I don't know, considering the lack of objective media in Russia nowadays.

This as just one more random example of how the Generalized Kind of Overall Line on How Things are Now Going, that emanates from some posts here, seems to suggest a whole lot more expertise on the sketched World Developments than can be upheld upon checking with the facts - and might just express a fair amount of Wishful Thinking.

timber,

Such looting occurred during the last gulf war as well. Then there was no transcontinental divide over the issue. The fact that Europe is a large art market is a red herring.

What's this about this invasion being an "astounding success"? If the Iraqis had won, that would have been an astounding success! All we can show is an imperial romp, a disgraceful piece of geopolitical cynicism. No one repeat no one who planned or executed this "astounding success" is coming out of it smelling like a rose, nor looking forward to a quiet, untroubled mind and heart.

Nimh writes:

"This as just one more random example of how the Generalized Kind of Overall Line on How Things are Now Going, that emanates from some posts here, seems to suggest a whole lot more expertise on the sketched World Developments than can be upheld upon checking with the facts - and might just express a fair amount of Wishful Thinking."

I think it's more than wishful thinking, though that it certainly a part of it. Let's say Wishful Thinking served alongside great dollops of artfully managed American Mainstream Media news... And perhaps some of that, Wait, Wait, Let Me Jump On the Bandwagon!

CdK, yup, hindsight is always 20/20, there was previous history of looting, there were warnings and assurances, and that ball was dropped. It may actually have been unplayable anyway, but we'll never know, and that's a terrible thing.
Tartarin, as a matter of pragmatism, The Attack most certainly was an unparallelled success militarily, and shows signs of bearing considerable diplomatic fruit as well. I offer no argument to those who assert a right to object to the validity of the decision to attack, but there is no basis I can see to question its apparent at least near-term success and favorable indications of continuing to achieve its political and diplomatic goals, again, offering no personal opinion as to the ethical foundation for those goals. Like it or not, The Attack worked beyond reasonable expectation, and, while it is barely begun, the process of reconstructing Iraq appears to be progressing to the satisfaction of The US. I believe much of the outrage misplaced, and I wonder if perhaps much of it stems from the demonstrated reality that unique among nations The US is indeed self-sufficient and subject only to such International Restraint as she may find to be in her own self interest. That in itself admittedly has troubling implication, and understandably generates suspicion and misgiving, whether or not such may be justified. The US has a considerable, and dismal, track record to overcome in regard to her intervention in other governments. I hope the critics of this current venture conitinue to meet with the success they've so far enjoyed. The Iraqi People, and the rest of the world, will do well if things continue in the current vein.

Just a thought: Who decides how many deaths are worth the liberation of a country from it's tyranical leader? c.i.

who decides? the ones with the most guns decides.

timber,

I bristle at the loss of cultural artifacts that can't be replaced, I hated the Taliban long before the average American for blowing up the Buddah, but while it would have been nice for the military to give more than lipservice to the protection of Iraq's cultural treasures (they claim not bombing the museum was their way of assuaging the direct and repeated warnings that started as early as January) they hae to prioritize.

Personally if I were in their shoes I'd place greater priority on protecting objects of sentimental and nationalistic value than they did but what's done is done.

My earlier comment was in regard to your red herring about Europe. What does Europe's longstanding love of art have to do with it? I mentioned the previous looting because during that war, in which there was little trans-continental animosity, I did not see any attempts to implicate Europe in the looting (or much blame directed at America for that matter). For this reason I labeled it a quite transparent red herring, a level (e.g. "a crime occurred, did you know minorities commit many crimes?") that you rarely post from.

As to your assertion of military success I agree for te most part. I understand what Tartarin is getting at (that this was inevitable) but you are entirely correct in saying that this was a resounding military success. Where we differ is that the war did not exceed any of my expectations, and I do not hold the diplomatic situation to be an unquestionable success (in fact I find it surprisingly convenient to turn a blind eye to the diplomatics rifts it caused and call it an unqestionable success).

My last qualm is that you claim to withhold editorial comment about the ethical nature of the war yet deem the outrage misplaced and claim that te world is a better place. That, if true, would be a direct editorial comment about the considrable criticism leveledat those who prosecuted this war.

Those are the same guys who decide how many civilian deaths sound reasonable to prevent the possible risk of civilian death through terror.

CI, how many apples equal a bedpost? Too, given the military scope of the current venture, no such undertaking in history has been more conservative of life. If one would be so crass and disingenuous as to assess a cost-benefit ratio based on loss-of-life vs politico-military achievement, from a purely historical perspective as opposed to an idealistic perspective, one would have to admit we got us a winner here.

timber,

Again that is entirely contingent on one's ability to arbitrarily determine, for one's own liking, the political advantages you will reap from the lives you cause to end.

CdK, I didn't say "the world is a better place" for this, I said the world, and the Iraqi people, will do well if the criticisms of US policy in the matter remain unsubstantiated. I freely acknowledge that's a big "if", with considerable counter precedent. As to politico-diplomatic achievement, the world appears to be reconciling itself to the fait acompli presented it, as witness even a recent announcement from Syria that she will not provide sanctuary to Regime Members and that she will increase her surveilance and control over her borders, apart from DPRK's acceptance of Cinese-hosted trilateral talk with The US and noises from Europe of a distinct "Lets let bygones be bygones and get back to business" flavor. If disaster and calamaty are to come from this, they've yet to make themselves evident.

I don't argue that The US is not arrogant, nor do I argue that unqualified success in the matter of managing the Post-Saddam Iraq is a given; quite the contrary. Still, the right words have been said and events so far have been propitious. The future may not be so kind, but I do hope for the best.

Well. I gotta go, but as a goodnight gesture,

Baghdad Bob is back

The website, after a prolonged outage due to unexpected popularity, finally is on a new host and server, and now is handling over 500,000 hits a day. Enjoy.

This assumes that ones diplomatic goals are the ones being sought in the war. It ignores the fact that very recent dimplomatic developments have occured that are, to some, very undesireable.

Again, when you determine your own criteria anything can be called a success.




Again, many consider "the current vein" to be a untenable situation. Saying that the current situation is positive is a direct editorial comment on the subjective issue of whether this is positve or negative. Again, when using one's own criteria to determine whether something is positive is all too convenient.



It does seem to be doing this, again, if one is allowed to determine which events are positive exchange of ideas is moot. Some consider the apparent willingness to let the US get away wih this as a negative rather than a positive. Again, a matter of perspective.

The point that I'm fairly certain that I'll be unable to get across is that conditional factors are not the only elements in the determination of a positive effect. The criteria can differ vastly, you are making circumstancial caveats without any that refer to a fundamental difference in criteria.

While that might sound pedantic I think it's paramount. I'll further reduce the probability of my point being well received by saying that from some perspectives success, as determined by US interests, is not positive. Again, perspectives offered as foil to very biased criteria.

Perspective matters a lot, I admit, CdK. True objectivity is difficult to achieve, even from a pragmatic perspective. What is "Good For The US", from the US perspective, often is seen, regardless of justification, as less than desireable when viewed from other perspectives. History offers plenty of basis for scepticism.

OK ... that's really it for the evening ... G'nite, all. Be well, be happy.

I do think I've neglected my own caveats.

Differing perspectives are often taken as a known subject that does not merit a disclaimer.

Side note: one must not leave US perspective to find vast differences.

So maybe it's unfair to insit on consideration of the perceptual differences since they should, as a matter of course, already have been considered.

That's just a wordy version of "when someone told me that I should add that my argument was an opinion I replied that it was so subjective an issue so as to not merit a disclaimer, it was obviously opinion. This might apply here as well."

'night. I'm calling it a night as well.

Oh Tartarin ...

What I wrote was "the astounding success of this war in military terms". Repeat, "in military terms". That much at least we can concede, for sure.

Military terms are not about the justification of the war, not about its political necessity, not about the risks of post-war reconstruction. Military terms are about - well, about the measure of success in the military defeat of the enemy (as identified by the politicians). When the gvt optimists said this would be done in less than a month, they were laughed at. Well, they did it. At what social/political cost and with what justification are interesting questions but separate ones. In military terms, even someone with as minimal a knowledge of such terms as me can see, it's astounding. Thaz all I said ;-)