Why Should I Believe That This War Is Wrong?

[Persephone]

For most of my life, I've taken mostly liberal stances on political and/or moral issues.

I don't like war, but there's just something about this current conflict that seems...different. As in, not wrong.

It's taken me a while to get to this point. But the more I learn, the less I see that's wrong with all of this. War is ugly, and war is sad. But it's just not always wrong.

One could argue that we didn't push a diplomatic solution hard enough. But really now, would that have worked? Saddam Hussein has done a fine job of proving that he's no diplomat. Perhaps it would have delayed this whole thing, and perhaps we might have managed to get more popular support, but I really think that it still would have happened.

And as for the people who holler about how long this is taking...well, it's been 10 days. Days. I think this may stem from people my age (35) and younger simply not having experience with long conflicts that involve the United States military forces. I remember nothing about Vietnam. The other military conflicts that have occured in my lifetime have all been very brief. But I know enough about history to know that this is the exception, and not the rule.

Civilian deaths? Yes, those are nasty. No one wants those. Except, perhaps, Saddam Hussein. It's become very, very clear to me that the US is trying it's absolute hardest to avoid killing civilians. However, they simply cannot be avoided completely. It would be nice if they could, but it just isn't possible.

The whole thing is confusing and frustrating. I know we don't have complete UN support. I know we're not stepping in to stop an invasion by Iraq on some other nation. But I'm just not seeing this as illegal, or wrong.

So, why should I? Really? Am I missing something?

[Mandelstam]

"Am I missing something?"

Well, yes--the 150+ threads that have addressed this topic during the last couple of months. ;)

Seriously, though, I'm burnt out offering answers to this type of question. But here are some potentially useful links. This short editorial (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020708&s=editors) was written during the summer but it still give the basic picture. This longer article (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020715&s=falk), which I think is well worth reading, explains what is so unprecedented and dangerous about a pre-emptive war doctrine.

Hope these help the confusion and frustration, which I do understand.

[Richard Pearse]

War is justified or "not wrong" when waged in self defence. This war, however, is one massive superpower invading another sovereign country because it wants to. It makes me sick really and I'm kind of glad I'm not Australian so I don't have to feel responsible for voting for Mr. Howard.

[Frostillicus]

Short answer: We are fighting a pre-emptive war of aggression against a second rate power half way around the world because our leaders in Washington are scared to death about what the leader of Iraq might to do us at some unspecified point in the distant future with weapons of mass distruction that he may or may not actually possess.

[Persephone]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Well, yes--the 150+ threads that have addressed this topic during the last couple of months. ;)

No, I haven't missed those, really. They're a very large part of the reason I'm leaning the way I do now, in fact. Here on the SDMB I can get both sides honest opinions, and it's meant a lot to someone like me, who's still working on getting the fencepost out of my butt. :)

[AZCowboy]

For me, it's pretty simple. I think the world will be less safe after this war, based on how it is being executed.

I really don't have a problem with the US being the world's policeman, but we should have a clear mandate from the international community before committing to do so.

Otherwise, it's vigilantism.

I'm no peacenik. Now that hostilities have started, I think we need to finish the job and live with the consequences. Not finishing now would make the world even less safe.

[ApathyMan]

The world would be less safe by taking out a fascist and his terrorist training camps?

Just give peace in Iraq a chance. While we are accidently killing civilians, that is only temporary. Keeping Saddam in power any longer will just result in more death for a new generation.

Why is there a double standard in the international society. If George Bush tourtured Americans, the world will be down his throat, while Saddam could continue as he pleases. Lets please stop ignoring the actions of militants and fascists and tyrants in the Middle East and Africa once and for all.

[ApathyMan]

By the way, it looks like I'm directly addressing AZCowboy, but I'm not. It's to people who are against the war for peace (and who also commonly use that excuse)

[AZCowboy]

OK, ApathyMan, and I see it isn't directed at me.

Where do you go next? Where do you draw the line? Specifically, is China on your list somewhere?

The US is now a check without a balance.

And, yes, I think the world will be less safe, especially for Americans.

[Declan]

Originally posted by AZCowboy
OK, ApathyMan, and I see it isn't directed at me.

Where do you go next? Where do you draw the line? Specifically, is China on your list somewhere?

The US is now a check without a balance.

And, yes, I think the world will be less safe, especially for Americans.

I realize that you asked that question to some one else , but not that long ago , china and the US were squaring off against each other for the p-3 orion tha was forced down.

China cannot be dealt with the same way that Iraq is being dealt with , its got too much depth to seriously imagine that anyone would want to get involved in an asian land war anymore ,with out seriously concidering tac nukes.

But letting China get away with murder is not the ansewer either,the State Department has to have the option of military force to back up its strengthing of the peace, other wise you just end up looking like Canada.

Declan

[jshore]

Originally posted by AZCowboy
For me, it's pretty simple. I think the world will be less safe after this war, based on how it is being executed.

Along these lines, see this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172697) thread.



Now that hostilities have started, I think we need to finish the job and live with the consequences. Not finishing now would make the world even less safe.

I tend to agree. That is the horrible part of war is that it is such an irreversible step! Just a couple weeks ago, we had lots of potentially viable options open to us. Now, from where I look at things, the available options seem to range from incredibly sucky to worse than that.

[capacitor]

Great Britain invaded mighty China to expand the opium trade in 1840 and 1842. Surely even the US would come up with a better reason to invade.

[Monster104]

So capacitor, which reason(s) do you want? Do you want the leftist reasons of "It's about Oil, and vengeance for Pappy!", the conservative reason "It's about Iraqi liberation, removal of a homicidal dictator, and the disarmament of Iraq", or the realistic answer of "all of the above"?

[capacitor]

No, I want consistency in policy, without the blatant power grab. I want new governments built in countries that serves best the interest of all the people living in it, not be a Sugar Shack or Banana Republic or a Oil Well or a Nike Factory that serves another bigger country, who would turn a blind eye to atrocities for the sake of profit.

Everybody but everybody wants Saddam to go, even conscientious objectors. What they want is to do the regime change without Crusades X happening, which is about to if not already.

[AZCowboy]

Upon more reflection, I feel that I did not properly address the argument that is suggested in this thought, commonly used by the pro-war faction (so likewise, ApathyMan, this isn't directed at you).ApathyMan wrote:
Why is there a double standard in the international society. If George Bush tourtured Americans, the world will be down his throat, while Saddam could continue as he pleases. Lets please stop ignoring the actions of militants and fascists and tyrants in the Middle East and Africa once and for all.I know analogies often fail in GD, but I can't resist using one to reinforce the point I made above.

Why is there a double standard? Because the US is the equivalent of the "sheriff", and Saddam is the equivalent of a known criminal - a mafia boss. We expect the sheriff to uphold the law, and we are not surprised when the mafia boss breaks it.

The effect of this pro-war position is the equivalent of stating, "all criminals should be put behind bars". Hardly controversial.

The problem is the process. In this case, the US is a "self appointed sheriff", and does not have a mandate from the community he is supposedly protecting.

We can't be judge, jury, and exectioner, and still claim any moral highground.

[Purplefloyd]

Not to mention that sheriffs have been know to use the power of thier position for unpure purposes, the possible extent of which is unclear in our present situation. Also, in law enforcement it is generally not a factor that innocent people are at stake in the process of upholding the law.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Because it heightens tensions in a region that can little afford to inch closer to teh precipice.
Because it is not in the best long term interests of the American people.
Because there has been no coherent plan set forth for what the "new Iraq" will look like, so we can not even reliably argue that it will be in the best long term interests of the Iraqi people.
Because by undermining our moral authority to act internationally we restrict our options not just today, but in the future.
Becuase when evaluating the threats of future terrorist attacks the existence of a despotic but secular Iraqi government that is our enemy trails far behind providing terrorist organizations a catalyst with which to inspire a large and enraged Muslim population that views the US attack primarily as a move of conquest with suspicious motives, not as a "war of liberation".

[Freyr]

One could argue that we didn't push a diplomatic solution hard enough. But really now, would that have worked? Saddam Hussein has done a fine job of proving that he's no diplomat. Perhaps it would have delayed this whole thing, and perhaps we might have managed to get more popular support, but I really think that it still would have happened.

This is pretty much my feeling, too. The war was unavoidable. It is necessary to use force to take out Hussein.

My problem is that Dubya, the paragon of diplomatic finese :rolleyes: , charged in without a UN Security Council mandate. I feel, after giving the inspectors a chance, the Security Council would have agreed to invade. Instead, he played the cowboy and went in, guns a-blazing.

Now we have our usual allies against us, as well as world opinion. They see us as nothing more than a bully. Any good will we might have had in the middle east will evaporate (if it hasn't already). After the fighting is done and Hussein is either dead or on trial in the Hague, there will still be holy hell to pay for this.

I think we've made a diplomatic blunder the scope of which has yet to be fully realized. :(

[Persephone]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
Because there has been no coherent plan set forth for what the "new Iraq" will look like, so we can not even reliably argue that it will be in the best long term interests of the Iraqi people.

I have doubts about this statement, Spiritus. No, I haven't seen a plan, and the fact that you've made this statement tells me that you haven't either. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. I find it difficult to believe that the US would just go in there, oust Hussein, and then just bolt, leaving Iraq to twist in the wind. I mean, once Hussein is gotten rid of, we're certainly not going to want to just leave Iraq open to be taken over again in the same manner as Hussein did.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by ApathyMan
The world would be less safe by taking out a fascist and his terrorist training camps?

Just give peace in Iraq a chance. While we are accidently killing civilians, that is only temporary.
For the civilians in question, it's quite permanent. Death is not temporary.

It's also going to be very permanent for the American soldiers who are going to die in the military occupation of Iraq as a result of terrorist attacks. You can expect YEARS of that.

[Spiritus Mundi]

What's to doubt? The statement is that no serious plan has been put forth. Thus, we cannot argue (except in blind faith) that this was will be a long term good for the Iraqi people.

I did not say the US would pull up stakes and go home the day after confirming the corpse, but that is no guarantee that the war will provide a better world for the Iraqi people.

You asked why you shoudl believe the war is wrong. Support for teh war tends to fall into one of three broad categories: it's a good thing for Americans, it's a good thing for the international community, it's a good thing for the Iraqi people. The first two of those are highly suspect. The last is based upon blind faith. Blind faith is not, IMO, a good enough reason to invade another country.

I should qualify my statement, though, with the observation that teh lifting of economic sanctions will quite likely be a good thing for many Iraqi people. I do not acept the proposition, though, that the only way to lift sanctions is to invade first.

[Spiritus Mundi]

The world would be less safe by taking out a fascist and his terrorist training camps?

Yes. Iraq does not exist in a vaccuum. It exists in a very troubled and volitile part of the world. I see very little hope that teh outcome of this war will be a safer world.

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by Persephone
I have doubts about this statement, Spiritus. No, I haven't seen a plan, and the fact that you've made this statement tells me that you haven't either. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. I find it difficult to believe that the US would just go in there, oust Hussein, and then just bolt, leaving Iraq to twist in the wind. I mean, once Hussein is gotten rid of, we're certainly not going to want to just leave Iraq open to be taken over again in the same manner as Hussein did.

I think the point here is that people are worried that our policy in Iraq will be much like our current policy in Afghanistan. Meaning that we'll leave a comparitively small peacekeeping force, but it won't be sufficient to actually control the entire country, and meanwhile there will be constant skirmishes with hostile forces.

[elucidator]

Fair Persephone, if you haven't seen a plan, why haven't you? Surely the wise and just men who have been reluctantly dragged into this war, after about 10 years of demanding it, surely they have had time to consider this question.

Which leads some, including yours truly, to suspect that they have, indeed, a plan but not one that they think they can sell right now. Havent figured out a way to wrap it up in red white and blue bunting. Haven't come up with a noble sounding purpose to compare with "liberating Iraq".

And as to reasons to believe this war is wrong, well, how about being lied to? If a war is necessary and unavoidable, wouldn't that be clear? If Iraq truly is a threat to the US, why would it be necessary to invent things to scare us with?

[Nobody]

Let's see what the civilians think:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/15447.shtml
He told de Borchgrave that some of the Iraqis he had interviewed on camera told him they would commit suicide if the American bombing didn’t start and that they were willing to see their homes destroyed if it would free them from Saddam’s bloody tyranny
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad – a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, ‘Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good.’ He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

"He slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam’s regime. Until then I had only heard the president spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq’s oil money went into Saddam’s pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family....
...I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others."

Safely over the border, they asked the driver "what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment." He surprised them, saying: "The Americans don’t want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb the government and Saddam’s palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam. All Iraqi people want this war."

[elucidator]

If you want me to, Joel, I can find you a cab driver who thinks GeeDubya is an alien from Area 51.

[AZCowboy]

Actually, my fear is that post-war Iraq, with or without US occupation (sorry, liberation), the remaining factions will fight violently with each other.

Afghanistan is at least mostly as single ethnic group, with many smaller tribal-type alliances. Iraq has three major ethnic groups, forced to live together under borders drawn by colonialists.

We'll be damn lucky if Iraq looks anywhere near as good as Afghanistan (and not that Afghanistan looks that great).

Anyway, with regards to the post-war Iraq plans, here is a link worthy of a quick read (not that it will instill any confidence):

Sources: 3 U.S. administrators will run postwar Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/sprj.irq.post.war/), 3/7/03

To understand some of the problems with this plan, I highly recommend Collounsbury's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172697) current thread.

[Persephone]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
What's to doubt? The statement is that no serious plan has been put forth. Thus, we cannot argue (except in blind faith) that this was will be a long term good for the Iraqi people.

No serious plan has been put forth, to whom? I'm not a Cabinet member, I'm not military, I'm not UN. No serious plan has been put forth to me, because I'm just a middle-class American citizen who, while concerned and confused and questioning, understands that the politicos don't need my stamp of approval on what the "new Iraq" will look like. So yes, it's blind faith, I guess.

Originally posted by elucidator
And as to reasons to believe this war is wrong, well, how about being lied to? If a war is necessary and unavoidable, wouldn't that be clear? If Iraq truly is a threat to the US, why would it be necessary to invent things to scare us with?

What are they outright lying about, elucidator? I know we haven't found any WMD's yet, and the link between Hussein and Al-Qaida hasn't been carved-in-stone proven (not yet, anyway--please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a terrorist camp just found in Northern Iraq?), but that doesn't mean that they're just lying.

Don't misunderstand me here--I'm certainly not saying the government tells the absolute truth 100% of the time. And I'm not a sheep here, just falling in line with the President because he said it was right and just. The opinions I've formed have been formed by me, not for me. That's why I started this thread. I'm pretty sure this conflict is for the right reasons, but I still have questions.

That's also why I praise my Deity every day for places like the SDMB, where I can ask these questions and get not just others' plain old opinions, but concrete answers as well. So I think I'll go read Collounsbury's thread now.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Persephone
No serious plan has been put forth, to whom? I'm not a Cabinet member, I'm not military, I'm not UN. No serious plan has been put forth to me, because I'm just a middle-class American citizen who, while concerned and confused and questioning, understands that the politicos don't need my stamp of approval on what the "new Iraq" will look like. So yes, it's blind faith, I guess. Persephone, dear, there's an important misconception in your words here. 'Just' a middle-class American citizen? There ain't no 'just' there: this is a democracy.

The details of waging the war may be the President's to hold close to his vest, but the justification for it, and its aims, need to be shared with the American people, in order for us and our representatives in Congress to give meaningful consent to this action.

What we're going to replace Saddam with is part of the war aims. And if the claim is that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq, knowing how is essential, since you don't get a viable democracy just by pushing a few buttons, or giving a handful of leaders some remedial civics classes.

If G.W. isn't sharing that plan, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't have a good one, and that his hope to bring democracy to Iraq is based on moonbeams.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
, but the justification for it, and its aims, need to be shared with the American people, in order for us and our representatives in Congress to give meaningful consent to this action.

I seem to recall a debate in congress wherein the reasons for war were discussed, and the athorization to use was force was given to the President by our elected congressional representatives.

You may not like the reasons. You may think they are wrong. You may not like the justification, but it is hardly accurate to suggest these things have not been done, have not been given.

Much more debate went into this than when we sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti, and the last President who attacked Iraq (for the very same reasons that we are doing so now,) didn't bother to get Congressional athorization.

There has been an unprecedented amount of debate and discussion concerning this conflict, originating from the executive office, and I'll challlenge anyone to find a case where more was disclosed and discussed to the public before the start of hostilities than this one.

What we're going to replace Saddam with is part of the war aims. And if the claim is that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq, knowing how is essential, since you don't get a viable democracy just by pushing a few buttons, or giving a handful of leaders some remedial civics classes.

If G.W. isn't sharing that plan, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't have a good one, and that his hope to bring democracy to Iraq is based on moonbeams. [/B]

If I understand the President we are not going to bring a Democracy to Iraq. Iraq will self-rule, and will choose its own government Democratically. But, there is no guarrantee that the Iraqi people will choose an American style Democracy.

It is not for us to design Iraq's new government, and I'm glad we're not trying to.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
, but the justification for it, and its aims, need to be shared with the American people, in order for us and our representatives in Congress to give meaningful consent to this action.

I seem to recall a debate in congress wherein the reasons for war were discussed, and the athorization to use was force was given to the President by our elected congressional representatives.

You may not like the reasons. You may think they are wrong. You may not like the justification, but it is hardly accurate to suggest these things have not been done, have not been given.

Much more debate went into this than when we sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti, and the last President who attacked Iraq (for the very same reasons that we are doing so now,) didn't bother to get Congressional athorization.

There has been an unprecedented amount of debate and discussion concerning this conflict, originating from the executive office, and I'll challlenge anyone to find a case where more was disclosed and discussed to the public before the start of hostilities than this one.

What we're going to replace Saddam with is part of the war aims. And if the claim is that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq, knowing how is essential, since you don't get a viable democracy just by pushing a few buttons, or giving a handful of leaders some remedial civics classes.

If G.W. isn't sharing that plan, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't have a good one, and that his hope to bring democracy to Iraq is based on moonbeams. [/B]

If I understand the President we are not going to bring a Democracy to Iraq. Iraq will self-rule, and will choose its own government Democratically. But, there is no guarrantee that the Iraqi people will choose an American style Democracy.

It is not for us to design Iraq's new government, and I'm glad we're not trying to.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by AZCowboy

Afghanistan is at least mostly as single ethnic group, with many smaller tribal-type alliances.


No - Quite the opposite. Afghanistan is a very ethnically heterogenous country. Indeed there is no single group that equals even 50% of the total population - The largest are the dominant Pashtun, who make up about 45%.

Originally posted by Persephone
So I think I'll go read Collounsbury's thread now.

Relentlessly encouraging and upbeat isn't it ;)?

That Collounsbury - What a kidder :D.

- Tamerlane

[The Ace of Swords]

You might want to read this analysis of our current policies:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

[AZCowboy]

No surprise, Tamerlane is right, of course.

What I should have referenced was religious differences as opposed to ethnic differences.

85% of Afghanis are Sunni Muslim, most of the remainder are Shia Muslims.

Iraq is more like 60% Shia, most of the remainder are Sunni.

And Tamerlane, should you stop back in, I'd be interested in your perspective as to whether Afghanistan is useful as a model for "nation-building" in Iraq. I'd be particularly interested in what you might see as the differences of significance.

[Nightime]

The problem is, even though it is possible to justify taking out Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons, that is not the situation here.

I admit, I have been trying to convince myself of the same thing. That the war seems terrible, but we have to free the Iraqis from Hussein's regime.

But is that really what is happening? On the contrary, Bush is playing up the idea that Iraq is a future threat to the US, and so we get to invade Iraq in advance, even without UN support, and even though it creates hatred of the US that is likely more dangerous than Iraq itself. And before that, he was telling us we had to enforce the UN's rules, by disobeying the UN. Obviously a ridiculous justification.

If Bush had treated this as a humanitarian campaign from the beginning, he would have had more support. The fact that he did not, and was perhaps incapable of doing do, just as he is incapable of diplomacy or caring about international opinion, is scary.

So my conclusion is that, even though what we are doing could have been justified on humanitarian grounds, it was not, and it is not. It is wrong because we are going about it in a horribly wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

[Spiritus Mundi]

scylla
I do not believe that anyone has claimed that teh justifications were not given to the American public (and the world, for that matter). The claim is that the aims, beyond the immediate removal from power of the current regime, have not been presented to the American people (or the world, for that matter).


Much more debate went into this than when we sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti, and the last President who attacked Iraq (for the very same reasons that we are doing so now,) didn't bother to get Congressional athorization.

There is a fallacy involved in treating military operations of vastly different scope as if they were equivalent exercises of executive power. Digging back a bit further we can make similar observations about Panama, Grenada, and Lebanon. But the only event that is appropriately parallel in recent US history is the first Gulf War, for which there was quite a bit of public, and spirited, debate.

[AZCowboy]

The Ace of Swords, thanks for the link, allow me to provide a teaser for the thread readers:Practice to Deceive (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html)
Today, however, the great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into. The White House has presented this as a war to depose Saddam Hussein in order to keep him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--a goal that the majority of Americans support. But the White House really has in mind an enterprise of a scale, cost, and scope that would be almost impossible to sell to the American public. The White House knows that. So it hasn't even tried. Instead, it's focused on getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind.

[Scylla]

Spiritus:

The claim is that the aims, beyond the immediate removal from power of the current regime, have not been presented to the American people (or the world, for that matter).


I would guess that's because we don't have any aims beyond the removal of power of the current regime, and the transition to self-rule for Iraq.

That is our goal. Beyond that is up to Iraq.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Scylla
I would guess that's because we don't have any aims beyond the removal of power of the current regime, and the transition to self-rule for Iraq.

That is our goal. Beyond that is up to Iraq. Then the entire premise that this is a rescue mission of sorts for the people of Iraq is entirely without foundation. Many things can happen once we let Iraq be Iraq, including a new boss bad as the old boss, or civil war and anarchy that would be even worse. (Yes, Virginia, there are worse things in the world than Saddam Hussein's rule.) On the whole, bad things are more likely than good ones, since Iraq has no recent tradition of self-rule other than the sort they've got now.

Since that's the moral justification that the Bushies are giving for this war, then it follows that if you're telling the truth, then they're lying. Not that that would fill me with shock and awe.

[Spiritus Mundi]

transition to self-rule for Iraq.

Transition? Iraq already has self rule. We just don't like their ruler.

[Spiritus Mundi]

If the administrations aims really are as myopic as you say, then that is another excellent reason for being against this war. (Though the point is moot, now, since we are commited to fighting it.)

Overthrowing a country in the most sensitive region of the geopolitical landscape (and doing it through a process that almost guarantees the maximum possible resentment and anger for US encroachment) without having a long-term aim is simply stupid.

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by Joel
Let's see what the civilians think:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/15447.shtml

These human shields who have changed their minds sure are getting a workout in the the pro-war press! But I fear they do not reflect the sentiments of the majority of Iraqi people presently under siege. And they certainly don't reflect the sentiments of the majority of other Arab peoples who are up in arms. Today 250,000 people protested in Pakistan against the war.

I heard an interesting interview with some Iraqi expats in Egypt. They were anti-Saddam, having in fact left Iraq for political reasons. Yet Bush's war, which they perceived as a self-interested and unjust attack on the Iraqi people, had actually brought them to the point where they supported the man whose policies they had fled. When asked about Iraqis' lack of choice under Saddam they said that that was an Iraqi problem and that the US had no right to step in and manage it for them. When asked about WMDs they argued that the United States had more of these than anyone. Although they continually emphasized their fundamental dislike of Saddam, they strongly felt that, right now, Bush posed a greater threat to Iraqi self-determination than Saddam did.

Granted, these were expats and no longer living directly under Saddam's thumb. Still, it's hard to believe that their feelings don't shed light on Iraqis now living in state of chaos and death not of their chosing.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised by the expats' readiness to support Saddam (they spoke of wanting to return to Iraq to help fight in their country's defense--though I didn't get the sense that any of them planned to do so). But then nationalism is a largely emotional phenomenon. And that is what Bush has done. He has kindled the nationalist and religious sentiments of millions of people. They are simply unwilling to entrust their hopes for a better Iraq to Bush's hands; and, of course, Bush never gave them the chance to say "no thanks."

Ace of Swords, thanks for posting that excellent (but deeply disturbing) link.

[Nobody]

So far, the only real resistance the coalition forces are getting are either from the republican guard, or solders forced to fight, because their wives and children are being held at gunpoint.
Originally posted by elucidator
If you want me to, Joel, I can find you a cab driver who thinks GeeDubya is an alien from Area 51.
Wow, way to dismiss what an actual Iraqi citizen thinks, just because he's a cab driver.

[jshore]

Originally posted by Joel
So far, the only real resistance the coalition forces are getting are either from the republican guard, or solders forced to fight, because their wives and children are being held at gunpoint.

And you know this how?!?


Wow, way to dismiss what an actual Iraqi citizen thinks, just because he's a cab driver.

His point (I think) is that you don't have a monopoly on knowing what other people think...particularly people you have little or no contact with. Nor do a few naive idealists who one gets the impression went to Iraq apparently thinking that Saddam must be a good guy (exagerating a bit perhaps here) and then discovered to his surprise that Saddam really is a very bad guy after all. Well, duh!

As the discussions in this thread and the excellent thread involving Collounsbury show, there is a rather wide diversity of opinion on what the Iraqis think. I believe that about the only thing we can agree on is that most of them are not big fans of Saddam and that many of them are, at best suspicious of the motives of and at worse equally or even more offended by, the actions of the U.S.

[Nobody]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joel
So far, the only real resistance the coalition forces are getting are either from the republican guard, or solders forced to fight, because their wives and children are being held at gunpoint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jshore
And you know this how?!?
Uhm, a little something called the news.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, way to dismiss what an actual Iraqi citizen thinks, just because he's a cab driver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His point (I think) is that you don't have a monopoly on knowing what other people think...particularly people you have little or no contact with. Nor do a few naive idealists who one gets the impression went to Iraq apparently thinking that Saddam must be a good guy (exagerating a bit perhaps here) and then discovered to his surprise that Saddam really is a very bad guy after all. Well, duh!

As the discussions in this thread and the excellent thread involving Collounsbury show, there is a rather wide diversity of opinion on what the Iraqis think. I believe that about the only thing we can agree on is that most of them are not big fans of Saddam and that many of them are, at best suspicious of the motives of and at worse equally or even more offended by, the actions of the U.S.
Yes, the Iraqi people may be somewhat suspicious, but that's only because of 1) Iraqi propaganda, and 2) Our failure to get Saddam the first time, thus, helping to lead to the death of several thousand Iraqi people killed by Saddam for starting an uprising against him, and not having the collation back them up in the first war. But closer to the end this war gets, and the more that the Iraqi people see that we will, in fact, remove Saddam, the more confident the Iraqi people will be in revolting. In fact, there is, or was, a revolt in Basra (yeah, yeah, the Iraqi government is denying it, big surprise.)

[jshore]

Originally posted by Joel
Uhm, a little something called the news.

In other words, you have no reason for believing it other than that it is said by those you choose to read. (And, this from someone who seems to think of Newsmax as a good news source?)


Yes, the Iraqi people may be somewhat suspicious, but that's only because of 1) Iraqi propaganda, and 2) Our failure to get Saddam the first time, thus, helping to lead to the death of several thousand Iraqi people killed by Saddam for starting an uprising against him, and not having the collation back them up in the first war. But closer to the end this war gets, and the more that the Iraqi people see that we will, in fact, remove Saddam, the more confident the Iraqi people will be in revolting. In fact, there is, or was, a revolt in Basra (yeah, yeah, the Iraqi government is denying it, big surprise.)

Again, I am completely amazed at your ability to cut through all the different interviews, interpretations, etc. of what is going on and arrive at the correct one based on nothing more than what you see in the media! Very impressive!

[Persephone]

Okay. I've just spent a looooooooong freaking time reading Collounsbury's thread (I need an aspirin and three shots of whiskey now...damn, my brain hurts).

Collounsbury, Tamerlane, Eva Luna, and the rest of the un-freaking-believably well-informed participants in that thread, I salute you. While I didn't read any of the links (I intend to go back and do so, but hey, I have to go to work myself sometime), I must say that I learned more in one day, just reading that thread, than I've learned in the months since this whole thing started. I knew there was a lot I didn't know, but I had no idea how much I didn't know.

It'll take me a while to fully understand everything spoken of in that thread, but now I feel a lot less ignorant.

Thank you. Thank you very, very much.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by AZCowboy


And Tamerlane, should you stop back in, I'd be interested in your perspective as to whether Afghanistan is useful as a model for "nation-building" in Iraq. I'd be particularly interested in what you might see as the differences of significance.

I'd say in general it is an apples and oranges comparison.

The Afghan model, such as it is ( which is making very slow progress, if any at all ), is at least loosely rooted in a certain historical reality of a weak central government that has always been balanced by a very strong tribal system ( probably unparalled in scope compared to any other modern nation ). As such the loya jirga, the tribal council used to choose a government, is actually a long-standing facet of Afghan society ( it was even enshrined in the Constituition of 1931, though I think that was partially altered in 1964 ) - It has also always been the tribal method of running things at a more local level, at least among the Pashtuns. I do have my concerns the current Afghan model can succeed despite the best of intentions, if only because as it stands now the central government is so incredibly weak, it can't really act as even a balancing or adjudicating force to promote stability. What progress Afghanistan had been making in the years prior to the Soviet invasion were due in large part to the increasing strength of the central government - In a sense all of those gains have not only been totally erased, but the central government has beyond regressed to the point where it is weaker than it almost ever has been. Hopefully that will slowly change in the years to come. But I suspect it will be a painfully slow process.

Iraq, in contrast, has always been a "top-down" country administratively. It was created in the 20th century from a more or less geographically consistent, but in terms of recent history rather artificial merger of three Ottoman provinces that had a foreign monarchy imposed on it. Both the monarchy, and later the military and Ba'athist dictatorships that followed, tended to follow a highly centralized policy that really didn't make much room for lower-level input. So paradoxically, while less purely tribal than Afghanistan, I'd venture to say that Iraq as a nation actually has less cultural experience in internal consensus-building.

Iraq does have quite a few advantages over Afghanistan however. It is less tribal, at least in the ( far more extensive than in Afghanistan ) urban areas. Even factoring in extensive war-damage it will still have far more national infrastructure. It is vastly more literate, with a sizeable middle-class, plenty of professionals ( and with its more secular history, many are female ) and much larger pool of educated intelligensia. And of course the biggest difference and greatest advantage relative to Afghanistan, is that it is much more economically viable as a single unit. Oil makes a HUGE difference.

I'm not sure how best to reconstruct Iraq. But at least it has some things going for it that Afghanistan ( in an abstract anthropomorphic sense ) would kill to have.

- Tamerlane

[Nobody]

Originally posted by jshore
In other words, you have no reason for believing it other than that it is said by those you choose to read. (And, this from someone who seems to think of Newsmax as a good news source?)
No other reason? OK, oh knowledgeable one, please tell me what I'm not reading so that I can be as enlightened as you.
And by the way, what's wrong with Newmax? Are you accusing them of lying or something?

Again, I am completely amazed at your ability to cut through all the different interviews, interpretations, etc. of what is going on and arrive at the correct one based on nothing more than what you see in the media! Very impressive!
You're getting pretty hostile there, aren't you. And what do you mean by "nothig more than what you see in the media"? Where else am I supposed to get my information from?

[Nobody]

Newmax should have been Newsmax, of course.

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
I'd say in general it is an apples and oranges comparison.


Apples and oranges, hell. That's apples and orangutans.

[jshore]

Originally posted by Joel
No other reason? OK, oh knowledgeable one, please tell me what I'm not reading so that I can be as enlightened as you.

Well, what I am objecting to is you making broad statements like the only resistance we are seeing is from Republican guard forces or soldiers being forced to fight by having relatives held at gunpoint. I have heard reports in the media that such tactics are being used by the Iraqis but, to my knowledge, there has not been any compelling evidence presented that this is the only reason any non-Republican Guard soldiers are fighting the U.S and U.K. troops. (And I am quite skeptical that there are that many secret police available to hold families at gunpoint for this to be the case.)

And, you might note that I am not the one in this argument who is claiming to have all of the knowledge of what is actually going on. I am merely challenging you to provide evidence for extremely broad statements of knowledge that you are making.


And by the way, what's wrong with Newmax? Are you accusing them of lying or something?

Well, a quick perusal of Newsmax suggests that Fox News looks left-wing by comparison. Anything written by their opinion columnists is quite suspect in my view. Whether they manage, like the Wall Street Journal, to have pretty fair and balanced news reporting despite having strongly opinionated and often deceitful editorials is something I haven't investigated closely enough to know. But, I would tend to be suspicious of relying on them to give balanced news coverage.


You're getting pretty hostile there, aren't you. And what do you mean by "nothig more than what you see in the media"? Where else am I supposed to get my information from?

Well, my point is that you are making broad claims to know things like what Iraqis are thinking without any firsthand knowledge (like, e.g., Collounsbury has...and he paints a very different picture). I would also tend to argue that your views can't even be supported by a full and balanced reading of even the media here in the U.S.

Yes, I do get a bit hostile when someone claims to know things that it seems they can't possibly know.

[mack]

Originally posted by Joel
Let's see what the civilians think:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/15447.shtml
Certainly you're aware of the stream of ex-pats headed back into Iraq:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0326war-jordan26.html

I guess that would mean ‘Saddam bad, Bush worse, Iraq good.’

[Nobody]

jshore, while I disagree with you feeling the need to get pissy, after rereading my posts, I do see how they can make me look like I think that I'm a know it all. I guess I'll have to watch that.