In light of the images of torture and humiliation that have come out of Iraq this week, I feel the need to write a letter of apology to the Iraqi people. I don’t know how to reach any of them personally, but perhaps some of our board members do. If so, will you please pass my thoughts along to them?
*To the People of Iraq -
I am sorry. I’m sorry you were brutalized by Saddam. I’m sorry my country used that as an excuse to invade and occupy your country. I am sorry for the actions of my government and for the behavior of some of the people we sent to you. It appears that the worst of our people are no better than the worst of yours, although many of us had come to believe otherwise.
Even though I have been disappointed by the actions of my government recently and sickened by the behavior of some of my fellow Americans, I still believe that we are fundamentally good and decent people just as I believe the Iraqis are. It may be hard to see us as anything but monsters at the moment, but I hope someday that we can come to know each other as real people with good and bad attributes just like everyone else.
I can only hope that your ongoing nightmare will come to an end soon and you can begin to enjoy the simple pleasures that come with ordinary living. *
Nicely expressed, but it might do more good if you were to write to your Congressman/Senator and suggest that an offical apology were in order.
What I’d like to see is an official televised (in Iraq) ceremony of court martial where each of the perpetrators was stripped of medals and insignia and sentenced to jail.
Yes, very nice letter bnorton. Please allow me to add to this… “I can only hope that your ongoing nightmare will come to an end soon and you can begin to enjoy the simple pleasures that come with ordinary living” and I will do everything I am able in order to see that that happens, including, but not limited to, voting out of office the man who is responsible for sending these cretins over there who did this to you. I will break my back to make sure that he is never able to do this to anyone, ever again.
Indeed. It is imperative that we speak out, speak out LOUDLY and often. This is OUR country and it’s about damn time that we stop letting politicians run it without consequence. I’ve written both of my Senators as well as my Congresswoman, expressing my utter disdain for our continued occupation of Iraq and demanding that they do everything within their power to effect an immediate withdrawal of our troops, vowing not to support any of them in any future election if they don’t take a stand and do what is RIGHT. And I plan to continue writing, calling and protesting until the last of our troops is out of there.
If we simply abandon Iraq, the bloodshed that will follow as the various factions vie for power will make the Iraqis long for the days of Saddam. Argue all you want weather we should have attacked Iraq ( and I firmly believe that we were right to do so ), how the occupation has been handled ( My opinion: Generally poorly ) or anything else you’d like, but the situation now is what it is, and simply turning tail and running is the absolute worst thing we could do, not only because of the chaos and civil war that we will leave in our wake, but also because we will be sending a clear signal that we will not follow through with what we start if the going gets tough. Like it or not, the current situation in Iraq is one of our own creation, and it’s up to us to see it through to the end. To do anything else would be shameful.
I completely and utterly disagree. Our continued presence there will only serve to make things progressively worse – not only within Iraq, but here in the U.S., as well, as retalliation plans will fester. The U.N. needs to step in and take over the transition and we need to get the fuck out of there NOW. Anything else would be shameful.
Yeah, I thank the good lord you’re not in charge over there, either. And I’m sure the Iraquis who want their damn country back thank the good Mohammed for that, too.
The Iraqis who want their country back is exactly who I’m concerned with. When all of this is said and done, I want their to be an Iraq for these people to have back, not just a collection of heavily armed, brutal warlords fighting over the bombed out ruins of Iraqi towns and cities.
Oh right, because they’re over there fighting each other now, and not fighting against us. And keeping the peace over there would be oh so impossible with neutral 3rd party forces overseen by the U.N.
We don’t belong there.
They don’t want us there and they’re fighting to the death to get us the fuck out.
They now have every reason to hate our guts for the utter HUMILIATION they’ve suffered at our hands.
They AREN’T going to stop fighting because of our presence – it will only get WORSE the longer we’re there.
NOW is the only proper time to hand things over the U.N. and say WE’RE SORRY.
Every single second longer that we’re there ruling them with guns and tanks and torture is one more second they get to stew in their anger and figure out ways to make us pay. If you really think we (and they) would be better off under those circumstances, I pity you (and them).
I’m going to go enjoy my Sunday afternoon with my husband now, something those tortured, captive people of Iraq are not free to do so long as our soldiers are there instilling terror in them.
FWIW, there have been several statements by American and British politicians and military leaders, among others, condemning this behavior in the very strongest terms.
In fact, I have yet to see anyone quoted as supporting these abuses – unlike certain other people who took hostages, were proud of it, and threatened to burn them alive unless certain demands were met. I hope that those folks were similarly unrepresentative of the majority of Iraqis.
One can rightly abhor such horrors and still support the overwhelming majority of American and other soldiers who do things to try to make life better for the Iraqi people. Here’s one example:
Thank you, bnorton, for restoring some of my vastly-diminished faith in Americans.
And yes, I say “Americans” as a whole because I think it only fair to hold the majority of your countrymen and women responsible to the degree that they contributed in allowing the launch of this murderous misadventure. If you’ll remember back to the pre-invasion days, there were only two countries in the world where a majority of constituents approved a non-UN authorized attack: the US and Israel.
In that sense, I think that your upcoming elections will become the gauge by which the rest of the world will determine your intentions. Four more years of the same Neanderthals in power will not only confirm that most of you are not sorry for what is being done in your name, but will also make it increasingly more difficult to distinguish between your Government and your people.
Sad but, IMO, true.
In any event, thank you again – I just hope that you and others like you will indeed be indicative of mainstream opinion in your country come November. Otherwise, the clouds will only get darker.
PS-I’d be remiss if I didn’t also add that there a great number of people such as yourself on this site. No wonder I keep coming back for more of what you have to offer. Watching US news now a days is an exercise in futility what with all the pom-pom wavers on the airwaves.
Given that you completely ignored Shayna’s desire for the UN to take over, i assume that this isn’t even an option for you either. Do you not believe that a properly constituted, multi-national force might be able to maintain order while avoiding some of the hostility that seems to be directed most specifically against American troops?
I’m not arguing that Americans are the only ones that Iraqis are opposed to, but the predominance of American troops in the country presents a convenient issue that radicals can point to in order to inflame hostilities among the Iraqi people. One of the more common themes emerging in interviews with Iraqis nowdays seems to go something like this: “I’m glad Saddam is gone, and i welcomed the invasion, but now i hate the Americans because of the way they have run Iraq since then.”
At the very least, turning control over to the UN would partially neutralize this type of argument, and would reduce the level of hostility until it was confined to former Saddam loyalists. Politicians in the US and UK are currently trying to convince us that it is only “terrorists” and former Baath party members who oppose the US, but interviews like the one that i have paraphrased above suggest that this is just wishful thinking or outright lying.
The simplistic dichotomy of “we stay and do it ourselves” or “we leave them to the forces of anarchy,” which seems to inform your position, does not represent the complete range of options for Iraq.
And MLS: Bush and Blair can repudiate the actions of those soldiers all they like, but the pictures of those abuses still inflame the passions of those opposed to the invasion, and give them a convenient rallying point for recruiting more supporters.
For what it’s worth, i do believe that those soldiers DO NOT represent the military as a whole. I believe that most of the soldiers in Iraq are there to do their duty to the best of their ability, and that they do their best to minimize civilian casualties and target only insurgents. But i’m not naive enough to believe that those few pictures in the newspapers represent the only abuses of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces. They’re just the only ones that happen to have been exposed.
And, in the end, whether those abuses are an isolated incident or part of a systematic pattern is less important than how they are perceived and used by those who would recruit Iraqis to fight the occupation. A UN force might not be perfect but, being a broadly-based international body, it might at least avoid the appearance of imperialism and strong-arm tactics that seems to characterize the ocurrent occupation forces in the eyes of many, most importantly in the eyes of many Iraqis.
I think it’s perilous to impose wishes upon “the Iraqi people”, mainly because there ain’t any such animal, any more than there are “American people.”
There are just conglomerations of invididuals–most of whom just want to get on with their lives–with various layers of ideologica/politicall insanities overlaid. Choose yer blather.
I cannot fathom why any Iraqi would trust American promises, any more than we trust assurances from the Arab world. Too many rancid layers of deceit, disinformation and spin–locally and internationally. When in doubt, and things are very bad, might as well go with familiar loudmouths. At least they might be liars somewhat on our behalf.
I was solidly against this war for the simple reason that soldiers can’t solve anything more than immediate military objectives. Tearing down an old regime is doable. Imposing a forced, fragile “peace” requires a very narrow window until applied statesmanship can forge a new reality among the factions. Otherwise it isn’t a liberation, just another occupation by a hostile, outside force.
mhendo, I’m sure you are right; I was responding to the poster who was asking that the members of the government take a stand on the issue. IMHO, they have.
The pity of such atrocities is that it gives ammunition to the extremists and gives a bad name to those who fight against such horrors. I am positive that the vast an overwhelming number of American and other soldiers in the Middle East would not even think of doing such things. There are numerous instances of American and other soldiers trying their best to help and protect the civilians, build schools, bring medical care, and so on. It is just a shame to have those efforts besmirched by the foul acts of a few.
It is to the credit of the British and American governments that they have condemned these actions utterly and promised to bring the perpetrators to justice. Just as it is to the credit of humane and rational Muslim leaders when they condemn things like mindless terrorism, corpse mutilation and mass murder.
No, I would have nothing against a “properly constituted, multi-national force” assuming a large share of the work in Iraq, certainly this is an idea that is touted with an almost religious frenzy by the “America is evil” crowd and by such notables as Senator John Kerry, but there is just one small problem with the idea: It’s a fantasy. Such a force dosen’t exist. The U.N is not standing eagerly by, begging the US to allow them into Iraq. France and Germany and Russia and China are not beating their breasts in remorse over failing to deal with Saddam Hussien when they had the chance. In fact, given the geopolitical realities of a post cold war world entering the 21st century, I bet some, if not all of those countries would positively delight in bloodying the U.S.’ figuretave nose if we did go to them hat in had, begging for help. The US recently indicated that they would like the UN to be more involved in Iraq. To date I have seen nothing from the UN indicating that they are interested in stepping up to the plate in anything other than a figurative way.
Lets assume that everything that I said in the previous paragraph is wrong. The UN falls all over itself in it’s eagerness to commit to a "properly constituted, multi-national force ". Where are the troops going to come from? The US currently has more troops stationed in Iraq than France has in it’s entire army! (cite) American troops will still make up the vast majority of any force in Iraq, and thus still be the flashpoint for conflict and anti-American feelings that they are now. Do you think all of that will change simply by having American troops put on blue helmets? Seriously, where are all these multi national troops going to come from? Given the pacifistic bent of their population, how many are the Germans going to send? France is loving the fact that America is currently occupying the position of villian to much of the Arab and Islamic world, they don’t want their huge population of Arabs to notice that really should consentrate on one thing: France’s racist society and the way it mistreats them. Russia? Do they even have the ability to deploy large ammounts of troops outside their borders anymore? China? Get real. How many troops would Australia send, mhendo? Where is this mythical multi-national force going to come from? It’ll come from America and Britain, that’s where, and we have that now. All we’d be doing is surrendering the control of our soldiers to a command structure involving many different nations with many different adjendas. The US will never turn command of such a large force to anyone who is not an American, and I seriously, seriously doubt that the U.N will agree to sponsor any “multi-national” forces under the command of an American ( sorry, Mr. Kerry, better rethink this one ). Where does that leave us except “finish the job before we go home” or “Tuck our tails between our legs and run”? I still maintain that if we chose the latter, it would be more merciful to nuke Baghdad as we leave, because we’ll be abandoning the average Iraqi citizen to a terrible fate.
Your claim that the US “will never turn command of such a large force to anyone who is not an American” is probably true, but it actually undermines your argument rather than supporting it. You see, just because they won’t do that does not mean that it wouldn’t improve the situation, or that it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. You seem to be assuming that, just because it won’t happen, there must be something inherently wrong with the idea.
Of course, your next argument will probably be, “Well, that’s just the political reality of the situation.” And again, you would be correct. But, for many people thoughout the world, the simple fact that the US doesn’t agree to something is not a prima facie reason to dismiss the idea.
You also seem to forget that there are many countries out there who might not be willing to submit their troops to US command, but that would be more than happy to support a UN-led operation. In case you didn’t know, the US contributes jack-shit in the way of troops to UN peacekeeping missions, as the UN website tells us:
I don’t know exactly how many Australia might send, but i do know that one of the things mitigating against greater Australian involvement right now is the strong public opposition to the current situation. If the UN took over, you can bet that public opinion in Australia would be much more amenable to sending more troops. I’d be willing to bet that the situation would be the same for many other countries. Hell, the newly-elected Spanish government explicitly stated that it would leave Spanish troops in Iraq if control was handed over to the UN.
What really gets me about the whole situation is the number of Americans who concede that Bush and his administration have fucked up the whole situation, but who continue to argue that the only people who can fix the problem are the ones who fucked things up in the first place.
The US government seems to have a special talent for squandering any goodwill the people of the world are willing to give to the American people.
After 9/11, the global outpouring of sympathy and support for America was overwhelming, and yet only a couple of years later many of the same people worldwide (including many Americans) were furious at America’s interventionist foreign policy and its overbearing “security” measures at home.
Just over a year ago, many Iraqis were jubilant that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been overthrown (yes, even though i opposed the war, i concede this to be the case), and yet now many of those same Iraqis are furious at the way the Americans have run the country since then
It takes a special kind of talent to alienate so many sympathetic people in such a short time.
bnorton, you’re free to express yourself in this way. But I have an issue with some of the things you say.
First, what gives you the right to apologize at all, in quite this form? I think it would be very appropriate to write a paragraph like your second one, expressing what American ideals are, and how we ought to live up to them. But an apology on behalf of the American people is a little presumptuous.
You hold, as far as I know, no office allowing you to express the will of the American people in this way. And I don’t believe you’re personally to blame for any of the misfortunes that have befallen the Iraqi people.
Keep in mind, Richard Clarke invited serious criticism upon himself by apologizing when he really wasn’t the person who was to “blame”. It made him look crass and self-serving to many people. It was a distraction from the issues at hand.
And why the hell are you apologizing for Saddam Hussein’s crimes? The only person who needs to apologize for them is Saddam himself.
With that said, I’d like to apologize for the Armenian genocide. I, of course, had nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. But I do feel bad about it.
That would be the right of freedom of expression, guaranteed in the United States by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In case you’ve forgotten.
I may be missing something, but i don’t see that this apology is coming from anyone but bnorton. Where does it say that he apologizes on behalf of the American people? As far as i could tell, he was apologizing on behalf of himself for the actions committed by his country. He seems to believe, as i do, that all citizens in a democray must bear a measure of responsibility for the acts carried out by their elected officials.
Well, as he didn’t do this, the issue is moot, Moto. Also, even had he apologized on behalf of the American people, he needs no office allowing him to do so. There is nothing forbidding him from doing so, either.
That’s very generous of you.
Do you not understand that someone can be sorry that something has occurred, without believing himself or herself to be personally responsible.
I sorry about African American slavery, and about the Holocaust. That is, i’m sorry that these things happened and that there were evil people who made them happen. I don’t believe that i, personally, bear any responsibility for either, but it doesn’t stop me from regretting their existence.
And your final paragraph, sarcastic as it might be, just demonstrates exactly what i mean. The OP was not claiming personal responsibility for the actions; he was simply expressing regret that they occurred.
Is this distinction a bit too difficult for you to grasp?
Well, maybe there is and maybe there isn’t, but lat’s say that the UN puts together a multi-national force that replaces a third of the US troops in Iraq, or roughly 45,000 men. That would be a substantial ammount of troops for the UN to commit, would it not? It would still be outnumbered by US troops 2 to 1. Now tell me this, and forget the US, forget Iraq, forget everything specific about this particular situation. In any multi-national force, if the troops from one country, any country, outnumber the troops from the rest of the countries combined by a 2 to 1 margin, can you see that country not demmanding that one of their Generals be in charge? I can’t.
But that also dosen’t mean that the US is unique in such an expectation. You can criticize the US for many things, but I don’t think it’s particularly fair to criticize them for acting the exact same way every other country would act in the same circumstances.
Would they commit enough troops so that the US no longer had a majority? That would change things. Otherwise, not. Second, I am well aware that the US dosen’t send troops to UN peacekeeping missions very often, but politics aside, there is a very good reason for that: US involvement is a MAJOR escellation, even if only a handful of soldiers are involved. You said as much yourself Saturday when you were talking about why you chose to study US history.
Maybe. When John Kerry brings out a detailed plan for how he would handle the situation differently, then perhaps my attatude will change. Until then, he seems to have pinned his hopes on the UN falling all over themselves to come to our aid if we simply unelect George Bush, and I don’t see it happening. Here’s a silly, stupid story: When I was a kid, I was camping one time and I needed to cross a marsh. I set out to cross it on foot, slogging through mud that came halfway up my calves, with water chest deep. I was about halfway across when some of the kids I was camping with hopped in the fucking canoe that I hadn’t seen, and started paddling across the marsh. I was stuck. The canoe was obviously the better method for crossing, but with the sucking mud it’s unlikely that I could have climbed into it without capsizing it, even if the other kids had been inclined to let me (they were too buzy laughing at and teasing me to let me on board). I gritted my teeth and slogged across, emerging from the marsh tired, muddy and covered in slime. I was teased for being an idiot for the rest of the weekend. Say what you will about Bush, but I don’t think anyone believes that he’s gonna quit. He’ll keep slogging forward, and sometimes that’s the only way to get to the other side.
Yes and no. The worldwide outrage and horror and support after 9/11 was extrodinarily gratifying for this American at least. The problem is that it’s easy to be outraged at the sight of two skyscrapers collasing into a pire for thousands of people, it’s a lot harder to get two people, let alone 2 billion, to agree on what to do in response. There are a lot of people who wouldn’t have supported an attack on Iraq absent of videotape showing Saddam juggling 2 canisters of anthrax and a backpack nuke, and some not even then. ( No, I am not maintaining that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Iraq was a terrorist state, however, and your admission above: *(Just over a year ago, many Iraqis were jubilant that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been overthrown (yes, even though i opposed the war, i concede this to be the case)) * to my mind is enough of a justification for attacking Iraq) Currently, about 80% of Iraq is reletively peaceful. The people aren’t happy that the US is occupying their country(who would be?), but we are being grudgingly tolerated and allowed to rebuild the infrustructure and provide humanitarian aid. 20% of Iraq is “hot” as small groups of terrorists fight, not for the future of the Iraqi people, but for their own power. That cleric in Falujia ( I’m blanking on his name ATM ) commands a couple of thousand insurgents. Claiming that they represent 24 million Iraqis, most of whom aren’t even of the same Islamic sect, is as insane as claiming the small number of soldiers who abused their prisoners are indicative of US military policy.
The big failure of US policy in Iraq has been in failing to get structure in place to replace the Baath regime in a timely fashon. What the majority of Iraq needs is not soldiers but policemen, along with a set of guidelines in place on how to handle criminals. (Due process of law, in other words) The US needs to show a greater willingness in incorperating Islamic elements into the new Iraqi government ( something anathma to Americans in general, but absolutely vital for any type of realistic Iraqi government ). We also need a…hmmm, the best way I can think of to put it is: marketing department. The average Iraqi needs to see Americans rebuilding and the insurgents tearing down. When we build a hospital or a school, and they blow it up because it was built by the US, the citizens have to miss that hospital more than they enjoy the US getting egg on their face. Rebuilding is going on right now, quite a bit of it, but all the news talks about is when people are killed in a firefight or ambush.
Finally, we all need a sense of perspective that’s hard to come by in this age of instanet gratification and immediate communication. You’re the history guy, how long was the US in Germany and Japan after WWII? Anyone who thought we’d “rebuild” Iraq and leave in less than a year was deluding themselves. It’s a long, hard process. We haven’t done nearly as much as we should have in the last year, but we have done a lot. Leaving prematurely would be a tragedy of monumental preportions, and a bloodbath that would make what has gone on in Iraq to this point seem like a sunday school outing compared to the fighting to fill the power vacuum that would follow.