Hard News: Meanwhile in Iraq ...
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
How many people would have been killed by Saddam if he was still in power? A lower number, but the country and its people have a chance of a decent future now
"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." Where have I heard that before?
-
The most telling thing against the occupation is the sheer number of Americans who predicted that it could cause Iraq to implode.
The US invasion was only partly responsible for that implosion. Iraq has its own history which provides enough reason for the current sectarian violence. Placing the emphasis too strongly on US actions runs the risk of not recognizing the dynamics of Iraqi politics.
But at present the issue is what would make things better. The Mother Jones series linked to up thread has whole range of opinions, most of them reasonable and plausible.
-
"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
Funny how one of the key people who tried to cover up My Lai is also the same bloke who waved a vial of white powder around at the UN in order to mislead the world about ficticious WMDs which got us into this mess... And to think that bloke was considered a moderate in the US administration at the time...
-
WH,
Placing the emphasis too strongly on US actions runs the risk of not recognizing the dynamics of Iraqi politics.
Those dynamics were known in advance, but I agree the focus should be on resolving the problem rather than rehashing arguments about the cause.
May G*d have mercy on his soul.
-
Neil,
Iraq has its own history which provides enough reason for the current sectarian violence. Placing the emphasis too strongly on US actions runs the risk of not recognizing the dynamics of Iraqi politics.
It would be informative if you could expand on this. Otherwise it's just dressing up an opinion to make it look like a fact.
I'm no Iraq expert so I would appreciate your knowledge. From many accounts that I have read, prior to the invasion there was not a lot of sectarian division in Iraq, high rates of inter marriage, many mixed communities etc. I'm not suggesting that it was a Jeffersonian paradise, but Saddam did not rule as a sectarian Sunni. For most of his time in power he was a secularist, giving Shia and Christians powerful positions, depending on their personal loyalty to him. Many Iraqi bloggers and politicians have noted over the last few years that caring about whether or not someone is Sunni or whatever is a new trend.
Part of they blame for this, they say, is that the Americans handed out the ministries (including control of the army, police and secret police) in a sectarian manner. This had consequences.
Given the state of Iraq now, with the ethnic cleansing of many areas now complete and millions of Sunni's fleeing the borders, perhaps you can tell me when exactly in Iraqs history has it been like this, on this scale? It would be meaningful if it was in the last 100 years or so.
Thanks.
-
"Perhaps the true horror is that Battlefield Iraq is now virtually accepted as part of the satus quo, like Aids Africa.
Perhaps the international presence in Iraq can now only be described as palliative."Agreed Andrew.
For a while I was backing the occupation (not the war mind you) as once you take out the law & order you have a responsibility to protect the conquered.
Didn't happen & Blackwater will go down in History.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14DA398E-F910-4CC6-A859-602C70F2D15B.htm
So replace it with multi national forces from Iran/Syria/Turkey/ etc - OK a few might have started already but its the only way forward I can see.
-
ethnic cleansing
This bugs me. Can we call it what it is, please? Pogrom. Genocide. "Ethnic clensing" was a euphemism invented by Milosovic's mob to try and downplay their murderous ways.
-
It is still a very damning phrase, euphemism or not. It also avoids any comparison with the holocaust, which can be raised as a distraction, and it includes forced migration which genocide does not.
That said, I take your point and do not use the phrase as a way of downplaying any horrors that are taking place. I actually think it is an uglier phrase, in that it highlights the intent behind the deed.
-
The Blackwater investigation is another shambles
Highlights:
Top Democratic lawmakers sent letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding answers over reports that Blackwater, which protects US diplomats in Baghdad, had been offered protection from prosecution when the State Department investigated the September 16 shooting....
...The New York Times said officials in the State Department's investigative unit, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, made the immunity offer though they lacked authority to do so.
Most of the guards involved in the shooting were promised they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in interviews as long as their statements were truthful, the Times reported.
I'm guessing any half decent lawyer will be able to get them off after that.
-
It would be informative if you could expand on this.
Fair point Alex.
I've done some reading on Iraq history which indicates a long standing, complex and antagonistic relationship between the Sunni and Shiites of Iraq. Most of that is not really the "fault" of anyone. One of the reasons the Sunnis had such a hold on the military (and hence why Saddam came to power) can be traced to the collapse of river trade in the 1930s. That trade was dominated by Sunnis. And when that went into decline many young Sunni men joined the (British organised) military.
Hence one explanation of Sunni dominance.
But off hand I can't give references, I'd have to spend some time digging them out.
However, the Mother Jones special on how the US could/should get out of Iraq does provide some opinion that backs this up.
From Juan Cole -
But the Shiites and the Kurds are petrified that the Democrats will get America out of Iraq and will leave them behind to be massacred.
And from Peter Galbraith
I think it is important to avoid confusing a moral obligation with an achievable mission. I mean, arguably we have a moral obligation to stop this civil war that is going on and which is taking thousands of lives, a civil war that was perhaps inevitable in some form when Saddam's regime collapsed, whether we were the agent of it or not. What was inherent in Iraq was untenable—that is, Sunni rule over a Shiite majority, which could only exist with great brutality. Once it went, there were going to be changes that were likely to lead to violence. I don't blame the civil war on the U.S., but our incompetence and our utter negligence in failing to plan seriously for the post war…beginning with not having any plan to provide security in Baghdad and stop the looting, has made this situation much worse, and you can argue that we have a moral obligation. But I would also argue that we don't have the ability to stop the civil war. We're not stopping it now.
Galbraith was Clinton's ambassador to Croatia (so he's most likely sensible and has some knowledge about civil wars) and is currently an adviser to the Kurdish govt in northern Iraq.
-
To the best of my knowledge Genocide has no particular distinction & is prob best term.
Pogrom is widly used but comes from the Russians running out or murder - genocide if you will. Now without too much of a blink is used for other genocides of other peoples.
The reverse seems to be true for Holocaust, a word of general taking on a specific meaning. I believe the hebrew word Shoah is used to avoid conflict on this issue - naming the event in their own terms. -
woops Pogrom = Russians v Jews
-
Russell, I'm not sure pulling out surveys helps in the 'truth' process. There have been other figures eg from the Iraqi Hospital records which put deaths at a much less figure.
Hospitals would only record the deaths of those who actually died in the hospital, while under medical observation. That would not describe the circumstances of most deaths to date.
-
War is a racket. The only people who win are the men selling the guns, to the tune of a couple trillion dollars this time over, and it only costs them a tiny fraction of that in bribes (as "campaign contributions" in the states) to get one started, helpfully supported by the media (coincidently owned in large part by those who sell the guns).
The Iraq adventure will end when the people in the US bring a halt to the operation of normal government through mass protest, as they are unwilling to kill their own civilians at home on mass to maintain order. Until then the genocide will continue to further promote the war budget, with whatever Orwellian bullshit is needed (look how bad it is, we can't leave now) to support it being endlessly repeated.
It took 15 years in Vietnam, when the American kids whose whole memory was of the war abroad reached adulthood and demanded unconditionally that it stop. -
How many people would have been killed by Saddam if he was still in power? A lower number, but the country and its people have a chance of a decent future now, they had none whatsoever under Hussein.
This may have been true a year ago - its not any more. The people of Iraq no longer have a state; they have no central government and are largely ruled by decentralised religious militias, many of which are considerably more bloodthirsty than Saddam Hussein.
The Baarth government would kill you if they thought you were plotting against the state - many of the current militia's will kill you for being Sunni, or Shia'a, or Kurdish, or being a university professor or a women with a job.
In addition the people of Iraq now have the US army to contend with - and they'll blow up your house with gunships if they suspect there are 'terrorists' operating nearby, a peril that was not a feature of daily life under Saddam.
-
It would be informative if you could expand on this.
I found The Nation article I was thinking of - Persian Ghosts
I disagree with some aspects of its analysis but it has a good and I think reliable account of the history of tensions in Iraq.
-
In one post, James says...
I don't think, infact I am sure the US did not anticipate Al Qaeda showing up in Iraq the way they did,
And in another, on a different sub-topic, he says...
But you can make reasonable predictions can't you? In fact you need to, don't you?
Now, I realise cherry picking quotes is a bit mean, and you could take anyones words to use against them if you try hard enough.... but this contrast is just to big to skip over...
The whole freaking wide world WAS predicting that taking your army overseas to a region that already didnt like you very much and shooting some of them, was going to increase the level of hatred and encourage more young men to get angry enough to take up arms against you.
The entire world was predicting an increase in terrorism becuase of the provocation of invasion.
How come your guys didn't predict it? Or did they predict it and choose to do it anyway?
-
Russell, I wouldn't mind 'what it says' if it could be relied on. The Lancet study really seems way off the mark. It's methodology is dodgy. But if it was near the 'truth', then fine. But 12,000 people a month dead because of the war since March 2003? Hmm. I certainly wouldn't like that.
I don't think you can slap the 'peer review' big boy on it either. There have been many studies with 'peer reviews' that have turned out to be less than credible.
-
Pogrom = Russians v Jews
Actually, pogrom is used more widely than that; for example to refer to Polish massacres and explusions of Jews.
-
I don't think you can slap the 'peer review' big boy on it either. There have been many studies with 'peer reviews' that have turned out to be less than credible.
Peer review is the best method we have for ascertaining that research is correct. It simply means having other people, who are experts in the field, looking at it and making sure that as much as possible, it is correct. It adds authority to any research done, the better the peers, the more authority generally. Of course it's not perfect, and the research and the peers could be wrong, but it's better than non-peer reviewed research.
I wish that the American government had got some peer review on their claims that Iraq had WMDs.
-
I wish that the American government had got some peer review on their claims that Iraq had WMDs.
You forget that America is 'without peer'.
-
Russell, I wouldn't mind 'what it says' if it could be relied on. The Lancet study really seems way off the mark. It's methodology is dodgy. But if it was near the 'truth', then fine. But 12,000 people a month dead because of the war since March 2003? Hmm. I certainly wouldn't like that.
Your argument seems to be that you don't think its true because you don't want it to be true, which isn't a terribly robust platform.
How unlikely is 12,000 dead a month when you consider that much of the country is without regular power and running water and contains several million homeless refugees? Even if you didn't have ethnic cleansing and civil war raging the death toll from starvation and disease in such circumstances is going to be very severe.
-
Here's another robust survey, published in September, that supports the Lancet work:
The ORB estimate of 1.22 million is very close to Lancet 2 updated according to the IBC body count timeline - 1.16 million. So they reinforce each other.
We now have four survey estimates from three independent teams of professionals using two different good-practice methods. They all say that the excess deaths in Iraq are hugely greater than the IBC body count, let alone the numbers from the MNF or the Iraqi government.
More here.
I think there's a limit to how long it's possible to go on denying the research.
-
Pedantry:
I think there's a limit to how long it's possible to go on denying the research.
Swap possible for tenable in there. Clearly it's possible since James Bremner does it every time he speaks on the subject.
-
looking back at our time of Empire I suppose our "away game" was the fighting on the Somme and at Passchendaele
Except that those places are in France and Belgium, which the Germans had invaded and we were helping the French/Belgians try and repulse them.
I guess a better comparison was Gallipoli, where we were invading someone elses country.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.