You keep nitpicking and deliberately ignoring the big picture. There will be NO civil war in Iraq. No dirigeant as bad as Saddam will take power there in the next century. The crushing majority of the Iraqi people will be way better off after this war is over. The kurds are going to be just fine. Please repeat that to yourself many times until you stop seeing the goddamn apocalypse dawning on us.
Now, to adress some of your points.
No, I’m not weakening my position. I am showing you that I am not blindly supporting a position. I see both the evil and the good of this war and i think the good far outweights the evils.Period.
What you said about the increasing popularity of islamist radicalists in some muslim countries is true. This is happening because people are fed up with corrupt, opressive regimes and the poverty that ensues from the practices and priorities of their leaders. NOT because of u.s bases in the gulf, Iraq or even Bin Laden’s diatribes. Those are only used as symbols. Except maybe Palestine. And well, Palestine will probably remain an issue for as long as we are alive. The best way to fight those radical tendencies is by instauring real democracies, giving people hope and opportunities. Something that just might happen in Iraq. In any case, the situation is glum but not as desperate as you paint it. Definitely way too soon to worry about potential havens for Alqaeda.
Kdier Gozu? Un moment SVP. akhouia bash kien mouchkil. I do not believe the assertion that there will not be civil conflit in Iraq stands to close analysis. Outright civil war, perhaps not, but ongoing deep civil dissension, oh yes. Serious issues in re Sunni and Shi’ia in the area - excuse for repression in the Gulf you know.
You have a Sunni elite about to lose monopoly on power, a Kurdish minority about to lose autonomy. A shi’a majority that wants to taste power for the first time, and at least 50 years of hatreds and resentments. The last generation of Kurds were raised without Arabism or related ideologies, quite the opposite, while you and I both know the Arab world is deeply attached to Arab supremacy, voir l’Algerie et le Pouvoir la.
This is not a recipe for stability. Above all insofar as the geopolitical situation and poor diplomacy has led to all the neighbors having an interest in something less than a perfect transition. Indeed the socio-political sitution points to Lebanese style socio-political tensions, and a kind of situation like Lebanon where civil war is but one demagogue away. One demagogue away.
Context, all actions have context and context can radically change the results for any isolated action.
Very true, however as I noted in my own special little thread, what I fear most is the creation of an Egypt on the Euphrates.
It is all well and good for the pious proclamations on freeing the Iraqi people and all this kind of pious nonsense, but the reality is, if there is not an overall shift in policy on the region, it looks like nothing more than hypocritical posturing to the balance of the Arab world, where we support some almost as nasty folks. You know that.
I personally have to look at these things in a regional framework and look to medium term results. A corrupt pseudo-democracy tied to US interests in a slavish manner, a la Mubarek, in my view for my national interests in the medium run, is worse than a weak enemy dictatorship. Insofar as I have seen little evidence that the current administration has a team with any skill at all at addressing the underlying problems around here, I am pessimistic.
Well my friend, I disagree as real democracies require time to develop and short term interests are likely in the future, as in the past, to trump support for and patience with the kinds of developments that real democratic practices will lead to, i.e. Islamist based governments for example. The War on Terror ™ will trump that, shortsightedly I would say.
Apocalyptic scenarios are perhaps not warrented, but niether is optimism for I lay the best odds on an Egyptian style regime emerging -although of course it would be a challenge to rise to that level of incompetence.
Well, much of what I would have said has already been said by others. In a nutshell, though, I don’t believe that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq without U.S. support, as it will gravely damage our ability to engage in productive diplomacy and nation-building not only in the Middle East, but worldwide for a long time. As unfortunate as it may be, other nations will inevitably engage in tit-for-tat.
Also, now that we have invaded, I’d have much fewer misgivings about our likely future actions there if I believed that Bush et al. either had the inclination or the background/abilities to know what the hell to do with the place once hostilities have ended. Frankly the U.S. has an awful record in properly addressing international ethnic and religious conflicts, because we don’t understand the motivations of the parties involved. Bush is one of our least worldly Presidents in recent history (and I’m being IMHO ver generous here), so I have essentially zero confidence in his ability to create a stable situation in Iraq, even if his motivations are the noblest, and to be kind, I don’t believe his motivations are the noblest. Heck, I don’t know if Jimmy Carter could fix Iraq.
It is pretty obvious to a rational observer that the whole of Iraqi military strategy in this war is to maximize civilian casualties in order to increase public oppostion to the war.
In other words, Saddam thinks his most powerful weapon is the peace movement. Moreso than the warehouses of anti-tank mines our troops are finding unused.
Sorry about all those good intentions backfiring, but they are.
You realize that that piece is nothing but opinion, right? Professor Lewis provides nothing other than his personal conviction to support his statements.
Much the same support you give for the good intentions backfiring. Pardon me if I choose not to simply take your word for it.
What an irony that would be, that Saddam should think that our opinion matters to Fearless Misleader. What a joyful and hopeful thought that would be!
“Gee, this many people around the world think I’m full of shit? Maybe I better rethink this. Condie, get me elucidator’s phone number, I want his take on this.”
Spiritus Mundi Saddam’s strategy is based on increasing civilian casualties. Why? It can’t win the war in any traditional sense. Obviously the peace movement is his best weapon.
Piffle. He might as well hope that the Pope will send the Swiss Guard to the rescue. And even if there were no such movement here, there are literally millions upon millions of outraged people world wide, most importantly in the Islamic world. They are the ones most likely to have an effect, GeeDubya has proven himself entirely immune to reason and entreaty. If he is ever troubled by doubt, like us hand-wringing liberals, he need only sprint off to a military base for another Pep Rally for Death.
But we’ll see. The party is almost over, the hangover is coming, and its gonna be a rip-snorter. The Victory Parade can’t last forever, I plan to spend it leaning against a tree performing the Yawn That Splashes. Then come the niggling little questions, the tiresome little questions, like how it is that he proposes to cut veterans benefits in almost the same breath that he orders our children into harms way? And just where are these dreadful threats he spent a gazillion bucks defending us from?
We (and by this I mean America and Americans) are not Iraq. We have NO right to dictate what goes on in someone else’s country, EVEN IF it’s awful.
However, we (citizens of the same planet and members of the same species) do have the right and duty to protect and aid people who cannot protect or take care of themselves.
That’s what the UN is for. If we as Americans start a war, we are pushing our agenda on another country, which is wrong.
If we as The World start a war to remove someone causing harm, it’s several moral steps better.
But the war isn’t about human rights violations. It’s about Weapons of Mass Destruction, right? I haven’t heard of any Mass Destruction happening, have you? I’m thinking , if I had 'em and the invaders were on my doorstep, I’d use 'em, and we’ve been on that doorstep and through it days ago.
I object to being lied to. I object to backing and filling about why we’re there. I object to the concept that if I travel in the Middle-East, as I have been invited to do by several friends, I must tell people I’m Canadian or something so they don’t judge me by the acts of my stupid government. I want to be proud of my country being a world leader, not a world bully.
If we are going to start a war about human rights violations, while we’re over there, let’s attack Turkey for its oppression of their Kurds. Oh, but it’s okay for them to do that, they’re Good Guys.
We (and by this I mean America and Americans) are not Iraq. We have NO right to dictate what goes on in someone else’s country, EVEN IF it’s awful.
However, we (citizens of the same planet and members of the same species) do have the right and duty to protect and aid people who cannot protect or take care of themselves.
That’s what the UN is for. If we as Americans start a war, we are pushing our agenda on another country, which is wrong.
If we as The World start a war to remove someone causing harm, it’s several moral steps better.
But the war isn’t about human rights violations. It’s about Weapons of Mass Destruction, right? I haven’t heard of any Mass Destruction happening, have you? I’m thinking , if I had 'em and the invaders were on my doorstep, I’d use 'em, and we’ve been on that doorstep and through it days ago.
I object to being lied to. I object to backing and filling about why we’re there. I object to the concept that if I travel in the Middle-East, as I have been invited to do by several friends, I must tell people I’m Canadian or something so they don’t judge me by the acts of my stupid government. I want to be proud of my country being a world leader, not a world bully.
If we are going to start a war about human rights violations, while we’re over there, let’s attack Turkey for its oppression of their Kurds. Oh, but it’s okay for them to do that, they’re Good Guys.
That is a conjecture on your part. I see no indication that teh Iraqis have specifically set out to increase civilian casualties, though they certainly have attempted to use those civilian casualutes that have happened to good propogandistic effect. Exactly what data are you using to draw your conclusion that massive civilian casualties are a strategic aim of the Iraqi plan? (Which is a very different thing, BTW, from simply placing armed forces in the proximity of civilian structures.)
Human shields, ammo dumps in homes, shooting from mosques, surface-to-air missile sites next to hospitals, amateurish martyrdom operations against armored divisions–while heavy weapons fill warehouses, destroying the water treatment facilities in Basra, shooting mortars at evacuating civilians, blowing up apparently pregnant women, children as soldiers, fedayeen thugs hanging someone for greeting a soldier, etc…
You don’t see a strategy designed to maximize civilian casualties?
Of course, as luce noted, it has many propaganda benefits aside from just the peace movement in the West.
I would also propose the notion that Saddam does not want a professionally trained and effective military force. He would see this as more of a threat to his regime than a help. In his mind it’s better to send out waves of human chaff to be killed than to risk any possible threat to his power.
That might be a reasonable position to take if the country were a democracy. Then you could plausibly make the case that the citizenry has chosen its own destiny.
But how can anyone reasonably claim that a dictatorship fits this category? A thug who puts a gang together and takes over a neighborhood is a criminal, not a government. I fail to see how a thug gains legitimacy simply because his gang is big enough to take over an entire country.
My personal opinion is that any dictatorship has no right to soveregnity. That doesn’t mean we should invade and overthrow them all - sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and sometimes it’s not feasible.
But given the choice to invade for whatever reason, one argument against it is NOT the sovereign right of a dictator.
Lewis might as well castigate the Bush adminsitration for jumping into the war without proper international backing, as to castigate the anti-war movement. It makes as much logical sense.
As such, Iraqi policy has been clear, and with a peace movement or not, would have been the same. No other choices. Move combat into cities, a la Stalingrad in their view, and more likely, Beirut, play up the Bully Bush angle, appeal to Arab nationalist sentiment and go for broke.
Lewis’s analysis is frankly rather one sided in the end – as I noted at the start, one may as well blame the Bush admin for one of the past century’s most stunning displays of diplomatic incompetence leading to a transparently fake ‘coalition of the willing’ in a situation lacking any regional or wider international legitimacy. Of course under such circumstances Sadaam may be moderately embolded.
However the nature of the strategy would be the same regardless, nor do I think that the protests substantially impact the resistance nor cohesion of the regime. What really has had an electrifying effect in the region is a surge in Arab nationalist sentiment combined with some degree of pan-Islamism.
Let me note, Lewis is a historian and a mediavalist. He is not a cholar of the modern period. It sadly shows the poverty of Western commentary that however excellent a scholar he is (and he is a masterful historian for all that I disagree with some of his readings) , his commentaries on modern politics are roughly analabous to having a specialist in Mediaval and Renaissance France comment on modern French politics. Interesting if there is nothing else to be had, informative in very many respects on the classical framework, above all religious, in regional understandings, but … well not up to date.
As usual I have been hard pressed for time to visit these boards. During my tardiness others have provided some good arguments, so I’ll try to confine this to a few quick points.
I don’t think we’re on the same page here, Scylla. Firstly, it is questionable that the picture is as rosy as you present it. To be sure there has been cooperation from some elements, but overall I think the battle for the trust of Iraqis is far from won. Even the British are experiencing frquent episodes of mistrust, and they’re rather better regarded and trained in these matters than the Americans.
But that’s not the point. The damage I allude to, the damage that has been done and is still being done thanks to the perceptions on the Arab and Muslim streets, is due not to the behaviour of soldiers on the ground but to the idiocy of pseudo politicians like Bush and his cadre of fools, who sent the soldiers there without paving the way for them, without any concern whatsoever for how the surrounding region would view an American attack following on the heels of bombastic and frankly immature cowboy diplomacy. Also, recall the miraculous expectations of spontaneous revolts, dancing in the streets, etc. that were expected at the start of this war, and that would aid greatly in the fight. Miscalculation of the political climate and of Saddam’s power, essentially.
The seriousness of the situation stretches well beyond Iraq at the moment. In a sense, Iraq isn’t the greatest problem right now, though it will be as soon as Saddam is deposed and what to do becomes an issue.
Much of the above has been discussed and explained repeatedly on these boards, see links provided.
Aside from a deplorable number of friendly fire/missiles gone awry incidents, aside from appearing trigger-happy, and aside from lacking tact and specific training in approaching the people they are trying to win over, I agree with you, the troops are doing a fairly decent job (that we have information about – we may yet learn otherwise).
Agreed, it is difficult to conceive how some would defend Saddam on the basis of his record. However, as mentioned, he is the ruler of a sovereign nation, and deposing him is no small matter – especially when the US helped consolidate hiw power in the first place.
Disagree. I have argued elsewhere that diplomacy was derailed precisely when it was starting to show results (one of the links I provided earlier). At any rate, there is more to diplomacy than simply carrying out inspections for years on end and hoping for the best. Diplomacy also includes the task of building a credible consensus and a credible alliance inclusive of meaningful regional representatives when considering an attack like this war. It would be nice if Bush and fools were just a little more competent in these areas (with the exception of Powell, though he has been made largely irrelevant).
Ending the evil? Aside from its use in the insincere rhetoric of a bumbling leadership for the benefit of common denominators, the above is not an argument. This is not a Lord of the Rings scenario here, it’s the real world where (unfortunately) real issues based on interests count more than a humane outlook. It is regrettable, but atrocities happen in most of the world. How much noise can we expect about this kind of atrocity, selected simply as the most recent I could find? Or look at the case of the Taleban, one of the most evil and regressive regimes on record: the US chastised it for the years in which it acted out its evil, and only truly acknowledged it as a serious problem when it became indirectly associated with 9/11 – at which point they tore it down.
Even the most radical anti-war protesterwill be glad when the atrocities of Saddam come to an end. That doesn’t mean that there are no important reservations about this whole affair.
No one argues such a thing. I have said elsewhere that I am not against the war per se, but against the ham-handed, irresponsible, blundering way that this problem has been approached, most of all on the diplomatic front. This war is wrong because on a global scale it is much more likely to do more damage than good (again, argued extensively elsewhere should not the arguments in this thread suffice). We’ve already seen the radicalization sinking in among Middle Eastern populations, and sizeable Muslim populations like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Bush wants to bring democracy to the Middle East? Then he had better start cultivating a better image of America in those populations, so that (if by some miracle) democracy does show up next month, the humiliated, offended, and angry populations of these emerging democracies won’t elect rabid anti-Western or anti-American radicals as a backlash to what they perceived as an injust aggression.
I won’t even go into the issue of what approaching the war in such a manner does for terrorism, the very element Bush claimed was on his agenda when he made the decision to attack Iraq. This already considerable exercise in counterproductivity risks attaining monumental proportions.
Collounsbury has already answered this, but let me ad my own clear “no”.
What I see is a tactical approach which is dictated by the realities of teh mnilitary situation and the determination of Saddam Hussein to resist what appears to be an inevitable end. Nothing in the tactics requires a desire to maximize civilian casualities. Quite frankly, if that had been a strategic goal of the Iraqi regime then one would imagine that we would have seen more civilian casuaties in the Shiite south rather than around Baghdad, n’est ce pas?
The strategy may not be designed to maximize civilian casualties, but I would say it is at least designed to give the coalition pause in the attack out of the desire to minimize civilian casualties.
For example, the tactics of placing troops and equipment in urban areas to reduce the coalition open field advantage. Could they not do this AND evacuate the city of all non-combatants? Instead we hear reports of them forcing civilians to stay.
All right. Real life has been dealt with, and I’ve finished my Teemings article. The one I wrote has nothing to do with the war or the protestors. That article seemed unwilling to write itself.
Thanks for the patience, and Ill try to reply to some of the excellent posts a little later tonight.
