The US, UN & Iraq III

It was set up to form consensus on the subject of the USSR.
There isn't one anymore.
The world's attention is shifting to other matters, and that particularly expensive, largely US reliant body has outlived it's usefulness.

Now that the EU has come into existence, new countries are emerging out of the former Soviet bloc-- the world is not only thinking differently- it looks different.

I think a new body to reflect these changes is in order.

Blatham

You seem to imply that the British Empire was not entirely benign and established for the good of mankind. We had the largest Empire the world had ever seen, on which the sun never set, to bring law civilisation and railways to largely undeserving heathens.

The Boer Wars were a classic example. Those Dutch farmers treated their black workers like slaves. It was an act of liberation that forced us to take over the Transvaal's gold and diamond mines. (or try to)

Now we have passed on the burden of Empire to the Americans. We should not be so surprised that they act in exactly the same way regarding freeing Iraq and thus taking control of its energy resources.

Blatham,

I folloe you in regard to the criticism of the US but I'm not willing to accept a link as an argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject you contended.

I said that reporters (of NYTIMES for e.g.) have been looking for bodies and have been curious, as have I, about what "softening up" the Repub Guard entailed.

Many have concluded that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi soldiers had surrendered and that the loss of life was minimal due to precise targeting on the US's part and the common semse of the Iraqi military personell in walking away from their artillery.

Regardless of the spin the WH is putting on the facts (everyone does this, I am not surprised) this has not been addressed.

Are you saying that is untrue and that the White House is responsible for what would be misinformation from reporters on the ground?

If there's still interest in how things are going in Iraq, you may want to listen to the first hour of Talk of the Nation today (npr.org) online -- an interesting series of views of reconstruction, the hurdles, the administration, etc. etc.... And the war between State and the Pentagon to run things.

I just started my initial reading of the article suggested in blatham's post of Mon May 12, 2003 11:09 am in which I found the following:



Perhaps, but if the answer to the first question in this binary query is that the U.S. is able to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian is equation, would this negate or severely decrease the importance of Mr. Lieven's second interrogatory?

If this peace is achieved and Palestine becomes a viable state doesn't this work towards decreasing tensions in the neighborhood?
I was reading in the NYT a day or so ago about Lebanon (Presently occupied by Syria) and its deeply ensconced organization, Hezbollah, responsible for much anti-Zionist terrorism. One of their leaders said:

"When I think of America I equate her with Israel"

As that line in the movie Blade Runner goes: "Turtle, tortoise...same thing". But apparently both now share the attribute of evil because of the U.S.'s continued support for Israel. Fair enough. But, given that this thorn is plucked from the Arab paw, will this work towards Middle East peace? Is Saddams's defeat/Viable Palestine the silver bullet/sweet carrot needed to reach the "Tipping Point" needed? Will this take the wind out of Islamic Fundamentalist sails by convincing those governments, which support their terrorism, that maybe they are backing the wrong horse? Will they come to realize investment in their people is much more profitable than in the mal-intentioned minority of terrorist groups?

Am I being too hopeful? Maybe, but two things seem certain:

The window of opportunity here is probably narrow but is presently open and the U.S., even laboring with such disparaging adjectives that have been heaped upon it, is the only entity capable of this accomplishment.

Anybody?

Respectfully,

JM

What a sudden flurry of interest in Dutch politics, after all! Off-topic, obviously, but on such a rare occasion I can't resist ;-).

In a way it's even worse than you say, HofT. After the May 2002 elections a government of Christian Democrats, free-market liberals (VVD) and List Fortuyn was formed with a radical mission of change, but it proved to be the shortest lived government ever, collapsing less than half a year later, in October 2002. The cabinet officially resigned that month, so we actually have been without a proper government for over half a year now!

Of course Walter is right too: we are not wholly without government. What happens here when a cabinet resigns is that the outgoing team stays on as a caretaker government. Officially it is not allowed to take 'controversial' decisions, and thus more or less has to go on automatic pilot, until new elections have taken place and subsequently a new government coalition is forged. That's what happened: Balkenende-I stayed on, be it without the Fortuynist ministers who'd been fighting most acrimoniously, so some of the other ministers were running two ministries simultaneously for the time being. New elections took place in January (see for results here), but negotiations over a new government have taken unexpectedly long because talks between Labour and the Christian Democrats, the election winners, broke down in mutual recrimination. An alternative coalition, of Christian Democrats, VVD and the small left-liberal Democrats, is now expected to be presented in June ...

Should either of you want to pursue the topic, I suggest taking it to the 'proper' thread? ;-)

Steve,

Regarding your post of Mon May 12, 2003 12:35 pm in which you state:



Oh? Surely we are not to send MP's, The German Chancellor, President Chirac, and governing officials in Amsterdam pink slips and require them to vacate the premises of their respective governing institutions because those country's governments have been illegally constituted sans the Golden Seal of UN Approval? The authority flows from the governed.
(For a excellent discussion of what may be needed first in Iraq (It isn't free elections; that may actually destroy Iraq's chances at democracy)
See Charles A. Kupchan's discussion of Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria's thoughts at:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980501faresponse1396/charles-kupchan/illiberal-illusions-restoring-democracy-s-good-name.html

Causes of Iraq's present problems run deep and the UN had ample opportunities to help Iraq if indeed it cared to. Speaking of legalities, how about all those horrible sanctions the UN heaped upon Iraq because it wouldn't comply with all those pesky UN Security Council Resolutions? Many cite these as adding to Iraq's problems (but, apparently not Saddam's) or was that all the U.S.'s doings? Is this the tail wagging the dog? But if so, perhaps the dog is not the authority it would have us believe.

If one is really interested in solving a problem one must honestly define it. In engineering parlance, one must work within the parameters of the specs provided. If one wants to prevent flying foam from contacting space shuttle wings one must stop blaming natural forces such as gravity and momentum and labor to devise a solution that negates it or, more elegantly, uses that same natural force to accomplish the ultimate goal (This is the Devil in the details of the U.S. system of government).

Similarly, an international governing body that ignores the national interests of its member states and continually denies their characters as relates to their interactions is literally composed not of substance but paper. The sooner the world body realizes this the sooner it can move towards international institutions composed of more substantial materials than dried wood pulp.

Respectfully,

JM

Craven

I'm not sure of the NYT reports to which you allude, but I gather they contend most/many? Republican Guards simply went home rather than get blown up. I've seen accounts to this effect as well, and it clearly was the strategy (and hope) of the DoD that precisely this would occur - easier and better PR.

But what is the acceptable percentage of opposition soldiers blown to bloody bits? Rumsfeld held to the 'we don't do body counts' line (for transparent reasons), and likely the DoD has a good notion of how many Iraqi soldiers were killed, but they aren't going to tell you. The number of civilian deaths alone (if I understand correctly) by itself approaches the toll from 9-11.

The two pieces from the NYR of Books which led to this side-discussion, both made the points that US media coverage of the war was so adroitly controlled by the Pentagon, and the elements of this media was so poorly constituted/motivated that they seldom acted as more than stenographers for the Pentagon.

Is the White House responsible for misinformation from reporters on the ground? Let's acknowledge first of all that the WH clearly doesn't hesitate to misinform, so that is distinctly possible (leaked falsehoods and half-truths...the frequency of press articles headed by 'an administration official', un-named, is worth watching for). But you are, I think, referring to the NYT pieces you saw. Where did they go? What were they allowed to see? Where were they driven by military escort, or if they went on their own, what restrictions were in place? What percentage of battle locations did they visit? What range of content did they (or the editors) feel comfortable in printing? All these questions become very relevant given the information in the two links I provided.

blatham,

Trying to acertain an acceptable death toll is a bit futile. If we can agree that the death toll was relatively low then there is not much to discuss. A low death toll is a good thing for more reasons than just good PR but I do see your point, precise munitions are a key element in modern democracy sue to war weariness.

And IMO Rumsfielf is correct to not do body counts, the military views PR strategically, it is not to their advantage to do so. It would be like asking someone to document how many pimples they have on their arse.

I have long maintained that the military conducted the PR war flawlessly and that the embedded reporters' journalistic integrity also suffered.

I do not have your answers, were each reporter to give such a detailed account of his/her activities each newspaper would be accompanied by a book chronicling the activities behind the story.

I too am interested, it would put the facts presented to me in better perspective, but a death toll is something that is hard to hide forever, the military has a vested interest in not focusing on the slain Iraqis while they were fighting but with the chance of war weariness upsetting their plans being so low I do not think they would actively try to suppress the stats. I'm sure they won't help count them and yes I bet they have estimates but their job is hardly a noble impartial one. Militaries are the definition of partial and bias.

That being said I do not think their successful efforts at managing war time news (I think it's safe to say they have it down to a fine science now) is always an act of deception.

Compare Bhagdad Bob to the US. Both use PR, one was a laughingstock.

My point is that good PR manipulation is not about lying all the time, especially not to an informed populace.

And I think that my assertion that the war had a relatively low death toll is an assertion that will hold water.

If your point is that the death toll could have been avoided altogether I am in agreement and yes it's an odd world in which many are killed to save possible danger to a few. But my opposition to the war does not color my opinion that the war was as bloodless as current warefare allowed.

I've been away for a week. Especially interesting links to read here, such as Blatham's from the LRB and James Morrison's from a 1998 piece in Foreign Affairs.

Gelisgesti, I am still chuckling over your post on GWB's stuffed crotch. Whatsa matta, boy? Dinya know he is a real virile kinda guy, bein from Texas and all? :wink:

The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change


http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

Blatham - a bit ago you brought up "sanitized news," and so I went and did partial search on the embedded journalists. There is a lot to look at, and a very interesting site is Freedom of Information Center, which lists articles and authors. The general perception seems to be that the embedment of journalists was a calculated move that gave us news, but still sanitized. I would refer you to http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraw030314_usslincoln_notebook.1.html for a discussion of the restrictions placed on the embedded journalists from a report by abc news. The following link is a first hand account by Michael Wolff.
http://foi.missouri.edu/jourwarcoverage/livefromdoha.html

There is another intersting article by Charles Goldsmith of the Wall Street Journal about foreign journalists view of the coverage by the US embedded journalists.

So, as if we didn't know, the spin was there, all right. Of course, as Craven says, it always is. I believe Josephus was believed to have embroidered a number of his stories. This, however, is the cynical approach to almost everything by the WH. Sometimes it works, sometimes it unravels.

Regarding war casualties...no one of us knows, because that got sat upon just like Cheney's energy meetings. Doubtless there were far fewer, because this was a very short war, made by a first-rate powerful army upon a sixth-rate army. I have read and heard very conflicting reports about the pin-point precision of our weaponry, and I also question the necessity of dropping all those bombs. We knew they'd hit civilians we said we weren't out to get.

Whether or not the Elite Guard and the rest actually laid down their arms and surrendered - that's larger than a grain of salt, too. Not too long ago we were informed that Afghanistan had been freed, and the Taliban were conquered. What we now know is that many Taliban have simply melted into the existing warlords' armies, and it's difficult to know what Afghanistan is free of.

Although I think I was born cynical, it is certainly something I am now. But then that's one of the advantages of growing older. And I don't have to apologize for it, either.

Tartarin - do you somehow get the feeling that the War between State and Defnse is growing larger than anything in Iraq?

Two thoughts came to me after reading mj's last and reading some portion of the "Live From Doha" piece she sites...

1) The author, and all journalists, had the freedom to choose to be "embedded" or to go it on their own.

2) Why would a nation not try to control the media during a time of war?

Scrat

re your second point: freedom of the press.

Craven

I have trouble with the phrase 'the death toll was low'. What shall we relate this case to? What it might have been if they'd used more cluster bombs than they did use? Dresden? Panama?

I feel quite confident that whatever the actual toll will be in the end, it will be markedly higher than they lead us to believe. I don't think I have to bother listing the precedent deceits.

And I'm not at all willing to accept the justifications for deceit and misrepresentation by government or military. Nor the 'lay down' posture of so much of the press. To consider such as something like 'realism' is, I think, to give licence to the totalitarian urge. This is what we must fight against.

Walter - Re: your point regarding my second point; see my first point.

blatham,

I caught a lot of flak on abuzz once because I stated my preference for land based offsensives sooner rather than later and expressed my distaste for air dependance at the cost of greater collateral damage.

Thing is, while I'd rather that we go in on the ground most people would rather have 100s of the other side's civilians die for every one of our soldiers.

I know my position is the minority and I believe that is why things are the way they are.

I think the British were right in wanting to subdue the "shock and awe" phase.

You know my position well, and I don't see a conflict between my opposition and my recognition that some things went well.

I guess it's relevant to note that even if the war could have been prosecuted without a single death on either side i would have opposed it.

My criteria for evaluating the war had little to do with death.

It all comes back to 'why'. I think the most probable 'why' would be oil, Bush said it was WMD, neither 'why' IMHO, is worth a single life.

Scrat

Its true that journalists were given a choice embedded or not. But Tommy Franks made it quite clear that non embeds were at risk of being killed, and so it turned out, the Americans killed quite a number. I thought at the time it sounded more like a threat than a choice, and subsequent events have demonstrated it was policy. Crazy? Not at all. Its all part of the wider implications stemming from Bush's doctrine of pre emptive self defense published Sept 2002.

I just listened to a BBC programme discussing the legality of Operation Iraqi freedom.

Conclusions

1. Security council res. 1441 was drafted in such a manner that it makes out a case for war. The so called 2nd resolution was desirable but not necessary. That was the British position.
2. A "better" case is made that force was authorised to eject Iraq from Kuwait but that authority had lapsed by 2003, and a second explicit resolution was necessary to ensure legality.
3. The Americans never made the case for the invasion on previous UN resolutions, but on their new doctrine of pre emptive self defence. PESD has still to be incorporated into the body of international law. The most obvious recent precedent for PESD was the Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. That was condemned by the UN security council by 15 votes to 0, including the votes of the United States and Great Britain.

My Conclusion

It was at best of doubtful legality but America now has control of Iraqi oil and a useful base for further operations and that's what really matters, not the legal or moral arguments about killing several thousand people.