THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Here is the news from Britain this morning


Bush and Blair isolated as criticism of war grows


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1886648.ece

How the big wheels in the Bush administration have turned full circle

The CIA Man
"Iraq is now what Afghanistan was in the late-1970s and throughout the 80s into the 90s, and that's an insurgent magnet, if you will, a mujahedin magnet, only much, much worse."

Michael Scheuer, Former Head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit

The Neo-Con
"The US objective in Iraq has failed... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure."

William Buckley, Conservative Editor of The National Review

The General
"The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

Retired Marine Lt Gen Gregory Newbold

The Administration Man
"We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and... got out of control."

Colin Powell, Former Joint Chief of Staff and US Secretary of State

The Adviser
"There'll probably be some things in our report that the administration might not like... I personally believe in talking to your enemies. Neither the Syrians nor the Iranians want a chaotic Iraq."

James Baker, Former US Secretary of State

...

ican711nm wrote:

Allow those fingers to get purple again!

Yes, it would probably be a good idea to convince the current Iraq government to resign after holding a new election ... and to keep doing that ... until the Iraqis finally elect a government that is capable of protecting Iraqis against those deliberately killing them.

...

your point is completely without logic. "convince the current Iraq government to resign after holding a new election..." Why hold an election if the US is going to convince the current Iraq government to resign afterward? Do you mean, convince the current Iraqi government to resign and then hold new elections?

I mean negotiate with the present Iraq government to convince them:
(1) to hold a new election;
(2) to resign, if not re-elected.

In any event, we have no business getting into Iraqis elections or governmental decisions. Iraq is supposed to be an independent sovereign democratic state. If we interfere then Iraq becomes nothing more than a colonial state of the united states.

By our removal of Saddam's regime, we made it our business to enable the Iraqis to establish a government that can protect the lives of the Iraqi people--to stop them from being killed by those who once deliberately killed them at a rate more than 4,000 per month in Saddam's regime, and at a rate now more than 2,000 per month under their current government. Achieving stoppage is a necessary step to getting Iraq to be a truly independent sovereign democratic state.

The fact that we can even talk about getting rid of the current Iraqi leadership leaves open the question of their sovereignty.

"Talk is cheap." I think it evident to everyone that the sovereignty of Iraq's current government is open to question right now because of the killers of non-combatants currently running loose there. In the face of that, claims otherwise are worthless.

So, when we fail to convince them to give up their offices - which they were elected to, in a supposedly Democratic election, by their constituents - then what do you propose?

You who are the advocate of persistent negotiations, dares ask what should we do when negotiations fail?

I propose we persist until the regularly scheduled elections occur. Also, as I have repeatedly stated, I propose we modify our present overt military tactics for stopping the killing of Iraqi non-combatants to include covert tactics.

The present government is elected for a term of four years.

Also, how do you propose that we convince them to give up the power? Just ask them to? Seriously.

Yes, by repeatedly asking and explaining why we think it in their long term interest. If you were interested in accomplishing such a thing, how would you do it.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, when we fail to convince them to give up their offices - which they were elected to, in a supposedly Democratic election, by their constituents - then what do you propose?

You who are the advocate of persistent negotiations, dares ask what should we do when negotiations fail?

I propose we persist until the regularly scheduled elections occur. Also, as I have repeatedly stated, I propose we modify our present overt military tactics for stopping the killing of Iraqi non-combatants to include covert tactics.

The present government is elected for a term of four years.

Also, how do you propose that we convince them to give up the power? Just ask them to? Seriously.

Yes, by repeatedly asking and explaining why we think it in their long term interest. If you were interested in accomplishing such a thing, how would you do it.

Cycloptichorn

Ican, you recommend covert action against the killers. How do we manage this, considering that we don't speak the language, have a different culture, look different, etc.? All this speaks to the stupidity of the Bush administration, which thought we could produce a little America in the Middle East that would love us.

...
It's hard to say how I would do it, is the point.

I have a feeling that noone is interested in giving up their power, here in America or anywhere abroad. They won't leave without a fight. I believe we will have to 'convince' them on threat of their lives to leave their duly elected offices.

Wow! That is a huge turn around for you. So now you allege that people who hold (or seek) power will not give it up without a fight.

We can't wait four years to solve this problem (three, even); Iraq is already in the midst of a civil war and it will get far worse by that time. We need clarity before then.

Asking Democrats what their plan for fixing Iraq is, is akin to smashing an egg on the ground and then asking your opponent what the plan is to put it back together again. The truth is there isn't any way to 'fix' Iraq in the short run. All options available to us are bad. Our choice now is to pick the least worst option, which I and many believe will be convincing the Iraqis that they need to get their **** together by announcing our plans to leave the country.

But, you nevertheless advocate convincing the Iraqis.

If Iraq has the internal fortitude to continue as a Democracy, if their people wish to work together to make something happen, they will decide to do so in no time flat. If they don't, well, what the hell are supposed to do? Take care of them forever?

Cycloptichorn

Advocate wrote:

Ican, you recommend covert action against the killers. How do we manage this, considering that we don't speak the language, have a different culture, look different, etc.? All this speaks to the stupidity of the Bush administration, which thought we could produce a little America in the Middle East that would love us.

I suppose you reject the idea that:

(1) Some Americans in our military actually speak one or more of the languages spoken in Iraq; WE HAVE VERY FEW WHO SPEAK THE LOCAL LANGUAGES. THIS IS EVEN A PROBLEM WITH OUR STATE DEPARTMENT. THERE ARE CERTAINLY TOO FEW TO MOUNT A MAJOR COVERT CAMPAIGN.

(2) Some Iraqis will voluntarily help us learn what we need to learn for effective covert operations; WE WON'T GET MUCH HELP -- 2/3 WANT US OUT, AND OVER 60% WANT US DEAD.

(3) All of our communications with Iraqis to date were with those who spoke English. PERHAPS THAT IS WHY OUR EFFORTS THERE HAVE FAILED SO MISERABLY.

I think otherwise. I think that anyone who thinks for himself, thinks otherwise. IT SEEMS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE BACK MY VIEW. MORE AND MORE FROM THE GOP BACK MY VIEW.

revel wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

Allow those fingers to get purple again!

Yes, it would probably be a good idea to convince the current Iraq government to resign after holding a new election ... and to keep doing that ... until the Iraqis finally elect a government that is capable of protecting Iraqis against those deliberately killing them.

...

your point is completely without logic. "convince the current Iraq government to resign after holding a new election..." Why hold an election if the US is going to convince the current Iraq government to resign afterward? Do you mean, convince the current Iraqi government to resign and then hold new elections?

I mean negotiate with the present Iraq government to convince them:
(1) to hold a new election;
(2) to resign, if not re-elected.

In any event, we have no business getting into Iraqis elections or governmental decisions. Iraq is supposed to be an independent sovereign democratic state. If we interfere then Iraq becomes nothing more than a colonial state of the united states.

By our removal of Saddam's regime, we made it our business to enable the Iraqis to establish a government that can protect the lives of the Iraqi people--to stop them from being killed by those who once deliberately killed them at a rate more than 4,000 per month in Saddam's regime, and at a rate now more than 2,000 per month under their current government. Achieving stoppage is a necessary step to getting Iraq to be a truly independent sovereign democratic state.

The fact that we can even talk about getting rid of the current Iraqi leadership leaves open the question of their sovereignty.

"Talk is cheap." I think it evident to everyone that the sovereignty of Iraq's current government is open to question right now because of the killers of non-combatants currently running loose there. In the face of that, claims otherwise are worthless.

As prime minister, the Shia at first proposed Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who had headed the provisional government during the months before the elections. Washington, the Sunnis and the Kurds did not like him. The Administration's view was also the view of a New York Times editorial on February 14, 2006, called "The Wrong Man in Iraq":

"Mr. Jaafari has been a spectacular failure…. He is unlikely to do a better job if he gets the job a second time, particularly since he owes his selection to a political deal with the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a man whose own armed gang, the Mahdi Army, is very much part of the problem."

On April 2, the Times editorial called Moktada al-Sadr "a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror."

Ethnic militias are everywhere in Iraq, indeed, because ethnic mistrust there has deep historical foundations, reaching deep down into the period of Saddam Hussein. This mistrust was part of the "given," before the Great White Bush arrived with shock, awe and democracy. What else was to be expected?

The Times editorial of February 14 declared that "democracy does not require confirming him (Jaafari) as prime minister," and so it happened: under pressure from Washington, the man exalted by the democratic process was forced to step aside. Instead, his spokesperson, Jawad al-Maliki, has been put forward. Malaki is "a stalwart of Iraq's Dawa party - the Shia political group that for years led an armed underground resistance to the secular Baathist leadership of Saddam Hussein."3 Given the religious and ethnic context, is there any reason to think that Maliki will succeed where Jaafari did not? The imposition of American interests, we shall see, will only complicate the existing strife, pushing the country deeper into civil war.

You can roll your eyes all you want, it doesn't change the validity of my criticisms of your argument.

At what point did I alledge that people who hold power would give it up without a fight?

Cycloptichorn

What I do recall is you advocating that we negotiate with the terrorists to convince them to give up their power to terrorize.

But I'd be happy to learn from you that my recollection is wrong.

...

ican711nm wrote:

Allow those fingers to get purple again!

Yes, it would probably be a good idea to convince the current Iraq government to resign after holding a new election ... and to keep doing that ... until the Iraqis finally elect a government that is capable of protecting Iraqis against those deliberately killing them.

...
Ican, your point makes no more sense now than it did the first go around; evidently you fail to grasp the meanings of sovereignty and democracy. If every country depended on their ability to control their rebel groups, there would be few sovereign nations.

I think you do not understand the meanings of sovereignty. I think that if every country did not depend on their ability to control their rebel groups, there would be few sovereign nations.

We handed over sovereignty to Iraq in 2004, quite a big deal was made of it at the time.

Not quite true! We handed over partial sovereignty. That is we handed over the power to them to decide whether to take any other advice or aid than their own.

...
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
...
sovereignty
...
[1 :] obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sovereignty

I think we should agree to apply both definitions 2a and 2b:

Quote:

2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic

2 b : freedom from external control

While the Iraq governent is free from USA control, and is free to reject our efforts to convince them of doing anything, and is free to ask and cause us to leave Iraq anytime they want, the Iraq government is not free to exercise supreme power over its body politic: that is, it is not free to control its body politic to such a degree as to reduce the consequences of those deliberately killing members of its body politic to what is their acceptable level.

If we mess with their elections, for whatever reasons, then we make a mockery of handing over sovereignty to Iraq and calling the new Iraq a democracy. We have already interefered too much after the Iraq elections when we convinced Ibrahim al-Jaafari to step aside in favor of Malaki.

If the Iraqi government is not able to find a way without our aid to effectively control its body politic to reduce to their acceptable level those deliberately killing thousands of the members of its body politic, then it is not yet fully sovereign. Under these conditions, to say the Iraq governent is sovereign, makes a mockery of the meanings of the word sovereign.

...

And now because it is an US election year and Bush and republicans are getting flack about the disaster of Iraq which they created, there are once again grumbles from republican flunkies to interfere in Iraq's political affairs.

"Better late, than never."

Quote:

What I do recall is you advocating that we negotiate with the terrorists to convince them to give up their power to terrorize.

But I'd be happy to learn from you that my recollection is wrong.

No no no!

You don't negotiate with terrorists, you negotiate with the people who run the societies in which they hide!!!!

You get the society that they draw support from to shun them. Without doing this, the only option is to get rid of that society or admit defeat, neither of which is an attractive option.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What I do recall is you advocating that we negotiate with the terrorists to convince them to give up their power to terrorize.

But I'd be happy to learn from you that my recollection is wrong.

No no no!

You don't negotiate with terrorists, you negotiate with the people who run the societies in which they hide!!!!

You get the society that they draw support from to shun them. Without doing this, the only option is to get rid of that society or admit defeat, neither of which is an attractive option.

Cycloptichorn

I am happy to learn I misinterpreted you. However, I am not happy to learn what you actually advocate:

"Negotiate with the people who run the societies in which [terrorists] hide [so as to] get [those] societ[ies] that they draw support from to shun them."

To get such societies to "shun" terrorists is to cause such societies to reduce their power to not "shun" them. I think that negotiating that outcome is doubtful at best.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to negotiate removing al-Qaeda: Clinton and Bush failed to accomplish that in either Afghanistan or in Iraq. Only after failing that in Afghanistan did Bush order invasion of Aghanistan. Only after failing that in Iraq did Bush order invasion of Iraq.

Further, even if those societies did eventually choose to "shun" the terrorists within their borders, that would not be sufficient to prevent those terrorists from growing, expanding, and making more effective their terror operations in both their host societies and other societies. Please recall that it was with Iran's help initially--a non-host society at the time--that al-Qaeda transferred from Afghanistan some of its people who than began to grow and expand just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11. Outside help from other countries is quite sufficient for terrorists once they are allowed/tolerated sanctuary in any other host country.

...
So, how long have we been at it, trying to convince societies to shun terrorism, hmm? Seriously bending our diplomatic, economic and military efforts in neccessary? A decade? More? Not by much, if it is more.

Since 1988--18 years ago; since after the end of the Afghan war with Russia

Just as you would say that we need to keep working militarily to solve the problem, it is just as important to work diplomatically.

Nothing wrong with continuing to try diplomacy to solve the problem, while we also continue to try covert as well as well as overt tactics to exterminate the problem.

Moreso, because the diplomacy has a chance of working, whereas your approach does not, unless you are willing to kill large groups of people indiscrimnately.

I see zero evidence of diplomacy ever working without the credible threat or the actuality of military victory. I am not willing to try diplomacy exclusively, while thousands of non-combatants are being killed per month.

I am willing to try diplomacy while we proceed to exterminate the problem militarily as fast as we can. Yes, that includes some killing of non-killers of non-combatants who remain in the vicinty of deliberate killers of non-combatants, as well as killing deliberate killers of non-combatants.

Many seem to think it more noble to depend primarily on diplomacy while thousands of non-combatants are being killed, when we know primary dependence on diplomacy has never worked. I don't think that noble. I think that worse than despicable.

In the specific instance of Iraq, you are claiming that there is nothing that can be done to stop the terrorism there; even if we did get the Iraqis united in stopping terrorists amongst them, the Iranians would always be able to destabilize the place?

No I'm not! I am claiming that diplomacy alone is insufficient, and I am claiming that military victory or the credible threat of military victory is necessary for diplomacy to work in general and in Iraq. Finally, I am claiming that military victory or the credible threat of military victory plus diplomacy are sufficient to reduce terrorism in Iraq to a level tolerable to the Iraqi people.

The Iranian problem can be solved with similar tactics, but more simply: for example, start by recruiting Iranian guerilla cadres from all those disaffected Iranians who despise their government. The Iranian people are ready to respond to that approach right now. In retrospect, we should have originally first tried that same covert approach in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Not quite true! We handed over partial sovereignty. That is we handed over the power to them to decide whether to take any other advice or aid than their own.

At the handover ceremony, Bremer read a letter contained in the transfer document:

"As recognized in U.N. Security Council resolution 1546, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist on June 28th, at which point the occupation will end and the Iraqi interim government will assume and exercise full sovereign authority on behalf of the Iraqi people. I welcome Iraq's steps to take its rightful place of equality and honor among the free nations of the world. Sincerely, L. Paul Bremer, ex-administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority."

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The Lancet Study...
This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.

It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.

The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?

The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy Iraqis…)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable. And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would have you believe).

For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.

Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…


- posted by river @ 11:35 PM