The headlines today are not good. Apparently we've had some boys (and girls) behaving badly over in Iraq. What do I think now?
The left will have a field day with this. They love it.
I think the same thing the President thinks about it....
"I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated. I didn't like it one bit."
...
"That's not the way we do things in America."
Oh, Phil... you're so naive. When will you realize what's really going on?
The left will take an incident like this and use it to "prove" their long-standing foregone conclusion that it's what all the American military are really doing and of course it runs up to the top, the Evil (non)President George W. Bush, who wants to whip the Iraqis into submission so he can have all of it's oil and share the profits with his cronies. Well, that's the Leftist fantasy, anyway, because it supports the leftist myth that all wealth is gained by unfair exploitation and that all American military action is driven soley by economic interests, that there is no such thing as benevolence. And if any other motive than benevolence factors into a situation, then any benevolent motives are to be disregarded.
Bunk.
Oh, according to BBC, the footage of British soldiers participating in (I don't know if it was the same incident that the Americans were involved in) it was turned over by decent folk in the military who were just as disgusted as we are ... which fits most of them.
I'd rant on, but -- if you're a leftist, you've already stopped listening. And if you're not.... you probably agree with me.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Post-WWII Borders
I know that Britain made some huge errors at the end of WWII, and the US has made many bad mistakes in the region since then. I understand and acknowledge those issues.
However, I think that while you can hold up some glaring examples, by and large if an Iraqi citizen is going about his or her business and not doing anything wrong (looting, blowing up pipelines, shooting at them), the US military will leave them alone. It serves them no purpose to deliberately antagonize the population. The last thing they need is more enemies. It is counterproductive to the goal. They know it, and the Bush administration knows it.
Keep in mind that most of the big European countries and Russia that opposed the invasion had a hand in Saddam's checkbook in direct violation of the UN embargo Oil-For-Food policy. Many had a strong financial interest in keeping Saddam in power. When the law (International Law in this case) becomes corrupt and is wrong, it is right to buck it. If that were not true, we'd still have slavery here in the US and Apartheid would still flourish in South Africa.
I understand the US's role in Saddam's power as well. And by 1990 he was so well entrenched and guarded and wielded so much power (and not just due to US support either, but by France and Germany and Russia) it had become impossible for the Iraqis to kick him out. The US thought they could after the first Gulf war and pulled back, figuring it would be better for Iraqis to do it themselves (which would be true if it were possible) but Saddam showed that his hold on power was overwhelming. World opinion at the time was that we should back off. It did not work, and with horrifically tragic results.
The World's best intelligence agencies all believed that Saddam was a threat to the region. Not Iraq. Saddam Hussein. Saddam himself nurtured this belief. He acted as though he had something to hide (probably ego and bravado played a big part in this). So the realistic choices were to A) Wait and see if he did something, B) remove him from power or C) try to contain him economically and militarily, which worked out to be essentially equivalent to A. After 9/11, we were much less willing to do A. Long before 9/11, the Clinton administration itself called for regime change in Iraq. But at the time it was politically impossible. After 9/11, it was still politically difficult.
So, based on the intelligence it had, (faulty or not) the Bush administration decided it was imperative to remove Saddam from power and that now was the best opportunity. Sure, it played up the noble side of freeing the Iraqi people even though that wasn't reason enough before. I don't fault any country for choosing its battles -- where and when to fight and where and when not to. But I never bought that as the primary reason for doing it. It doesn't mean it was a bad reason, it just wasn't enough. Who does not play up their simple noble reasons while downplaying the less noble or comprehensible ones? The perceived threat plus that, plus the best political opportunity to try to correct the 1991 mistake was enough for Bush, Jr. So the invasion happened. The question is, with all that behind us now and unchangeable, what do we do now?
Saddam Hussein is out of power. Most Iraqis believe that is a good thing. Most Iraqis want a free and independent Iraq. George Bush wants a free and independent Iraq. I want a free and Independent Iraq. And by independent that also means "not occupied". There are 25 Million Iraqis, and out of them 1 or maybe 2 million Islamists (not Islamics, Islamists --- big difference). As long as the Islamists and other anti-American/anti-west elements continue to fight against the US mission -- which is a free and independent Iraq -- it makes it difficult for the US to pull out. Right now the US military is the closest thing to viable law enforcement Iraq has (which is admittedly not ideal -- but that's the way these things go). Many people are working hard to change that, and many other people are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. That second group of people ain't the Americans, and it's not even most Iraqis.
The best means of causing America to fail here is by forcing it to stay for an extended period of time, making it look like Bush didn't mean he wanted to free Iraq and get out and shifting sentiment against the US. This is what the Islamists want, because it is their only real chance of gaining power. They want the US to stay too long, or get out before they've been effectively neutralized. If the US leaves before that point, the Islamists can subdue the population by terror and force. If the US stays too long, they will gain more and more support from the general population. It's obviously not an ideal situation, but -- show me one! The balance between these timeframes is very important, and is likely the cause of any heavy-handedness you see. Would I have crushed the guy's taxi? I'd like to think not, but then again, I'm not there. It's too easy for me to sit back and tell them what they should have done in one isolated incident that I was shown. In the bigger context of the general mayhem and looting, was it the right thing to do? Maybe it was. In the face of such an overwhelming scene, perhaps one example is more effective than 1,000 arrests.
Here's the Bush administration's theory in a nutshell (and this addresses the list of other countries we're not invading if our cause is so noble, as well as trying to effect change in the most peaceful and self-determined way possible):
Iraq is a pretty well educated nation, highly capable, and with the natural resources it needs to be a strong and viable free country. If it successfully becomes a free independent nation, like Turkey -- what do you think will happen in Iran? Iran is also a well educated nation, and the younger population especially is pretty well fed up with the Islamist government. That government does not have anything close to the overwhelming power that the Hussein regime had in Iraq. The theory is is that it will accelerate an internal revolution (which is what has to happen for change to occur) in Iran.
If there are three strong, independent, and free Arab nations in the middle east, other Arab populations in nations Saudi Arabia and Syria are going to have to seriously question their leadership. And the middle east will change itself, no other invasions necessary. If it works, a LOT of people will be much better off.
As for Israel and the Palestinians… that goes back to the big mistakes Great Britain made at the end (well, actually during) WWII. But, those decisions were made, and now we have what we have 60 years later. The only thing I have to say is that had the Palestinians gone the way of Ghandi instead of Arafat, they'd have won their cause long ago. The west has a very difficult time siding with people who blow up random innocent people as their primary tactic for affecting change. You do understand that allowing that tactic to work logically leads to dire consequences for civilization everywhere. The world will be ruled by those who are willing to prey on innocents and control people with mankind's natural sympathy for others and fear for their own lives.
That pretty much sums up my point of view on the subject. I understand that it's possible to present a well-articulated argument against what was done and what is being done. Most of the people I know who agree with those arguments, however, don't seem to believe there can be any such articulation of a counter-argument. They blame it all on flag-waving and bible thumping, neither of which do I particularly associate myself with. I positively hate it when someone comes out with a stupid argument for the invasion. It doesn't help. I want to slap a lot of Fox News people upside the head.
I consider myself largely a Libertarian. Idealistically, Libertarians believe in practically no foreign policy -- live and let live. However, I also know that like most ideals, it is realistically impractical to try to adhere to 100% -- we don't live in a vaccuum.
Here's an Iraqi blog I like to read:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
I think the guy has a pretty good handle on the situation. Of course, that's just my opinion ;-)
However, I think that while you can hold up some glaring examples, by and large if an Iraqi citizen is going about his or her business and not doing anything wrong (looting, blowing up pipelines, shooting at them), the US military will leave them alone. It serves them no purpose to deliberately antagonize the population. The last thing they need is more enemies. It is counterproductive to the goal. They know it, and the Bush administration knows it.
Keep in mind that most of the big European countries and Russia that opposed the invasion had a hand in Saddam's checkbook in direct violation of the UN embargo Oil-For-Food policy. Many had a strong financial interest in keeping Saddam in power. When the law (International Law in this case) becomes corrupt and is wrong, it is right to buck it. If that were not true, we'd still have slavery here in the US and Apartheid would still flourish in South Africa.
I understand the US's role in Saddam's power as well. And by 1990 he was so well entrenched and guarded and wielded so much power (and not just due to US support either, but by France and Germany and Russia) it had become impossible for the Iraqis to kick him out. The US thought they could after the first Gulf war and pulled back, figuring it would be better for Iraqis to do it themselves (which would be true if it were possible) but Saddam showed that his hold on power was overwhelming. World opinion at the time was that we should back off. It did not work, and with horrifically tragic results.
The World's best intelligence agencies all believed that Saddam was a threat to the region. Not Iraq. Saddam Hussein. Saddam himself nurtured this belief. He acted as though he had something to hide (probably ego and bravado played a big part in this). So the realistic choices were to A) Wait and see if he did something, B) remove him from power or C) try to contain him economically and militarily, which worked out to be essentially equivalent to A. After 9/11, we were much less willing to do A. Long before 9/11, the Clinton administration itself called for regime change in Iraq. But at the time it was politically impossible. After 9/11, it was still politically difficult.
So, based on the intelligence it had, (faulty or not) the Bush administration decided it was imperative to remove Saddam from power and that now was the best opportunity. Sure, it played up the noble side of freeing the Iraqi people even though that wasn't reason enough before. I don't fault any country for choosing its battles -- where and when to fight and where and when not to. But I never bought that as the primary reason for doing it. It doesn't mean it was a bad reason, it just wasn't enough. Who does not play up their simple noble reasons while downplaying the less noble or comprehensible ones? The perceived threat plus that, plus the best political opportunity to try to correct the 1991 mistake was enough for Bush, Jr. So the invasion happened. The question is, with all that behind us now and unchangeable, what do we do now?
Saddam Hussein is out of power. Most Iraqis believe that is a good thing. Most Iraqis want a free and independent Iraq. George Bush wants a free and independent Iraq. I want a free and Independent Iraq. And by independent that also means "not occupied". There are 25 Million Iraqis, and out of them 1 or maybe 2 million Islamists (not Islamics, Islamists --- big difference). As long as the Islamists and other anti-American/anti-west elements continue to fight against the US mission -- which is a free and independent Iraq -- it makes it difficult for the US to pull out. Right now the US military is the closest thing to viable law enforcement Iraq has (which is admittedly not ideal -- but that's the way these things go). Many people are working hard to change that, and many other people are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. That second group of people ain't the Americans, and it's not even most Iraqis.
The best means of causing America to fail here is by forcing it to stay for an extended period of time, making it look like Bush didn't mean he wanted to free Iraq and get out and shifting sentiment against the US. This is what the Islamists want, because it is their only real chance of gaining power. They want the US to stay too long, or get out before they've been effectively neutralized. If the US leaves before that point, the Islamists can subdue the population by terror and force. If the US stays too long, they will gain more and more support from the general population. It's obviously not an ideal situation, but -- show me one! The balance between these timeframes is very important, and is likely the cause of any heavy-handedness you see. Would I have crushed the guy's taxi? I'd like to think not, but then again, I'm not there. It's too easy for me to sit back and tell them what they should have done in one isolated incident that I was shown. In the bigger context of the general mayhem and looting, was it the right thing to do? Maybe it was. In the face of such an overwhelming scene, perhaps one example is more effective than 1,000 arrests.
Here's the Bush administration's theory in a nutshell (and this addresses the list of other countries we're not invading if our cause is so noble, as well as trying to effect change in the most peaceful and self-determined way possible):
Iraq is a pretty well educated nation, highly capable, and with the natural resources it needs to be a strong and viable free country. If it successfully becomes a free independent nation, like Turkey -- what do you think will happen in Iran? Iran is also a well educated nation, and the younger population especially is pretty well fed up with the Islamist government. That government does not have anything close to the overwhelming power that the Hussein regime had in Iraq. The theory is is that it will accelerate an internal revolution (which is what has to happen for change to occur) in Iran.
If there are three strong, independent, and free Arab nations in the middle east, other Arab populations in nations Saudi Arabia and Syria are going to have to seriously question their leadership. And the middle east will change itself, no other invasions necessary. If it works, a LOT of people will be much better off.
As for Israel and the Palestinians… that goes back to the big mistakes Great Britain made at the end (well, actually during) WWII. But, those decisions were made, and now we have what we have 60 years later. The only thing I have to say is that had the Palestinians gone the way of Ghandi instead of Arafat, they'd have won their cause long ago. The west has a very difficult time siding with people who blow up random innocent people as their primary tactic for affecting change. You do understand that allowing that tactic to work logically leads to dire consequences for civilization everywhere. The world will be ruled by those who are willing to prey on innocents and control people with mankind's natural sympathy for others and fear for their own lives.
That pretty much sums up my point of view on the subject. I understand that it's possible to present a well-articulated argument against what was done and what is being done. Most of the people I know who agree with those arguments, however, don't seem to believe there can be any such articulation of a counter-argument. They blame it all on flag-waving and bible thumping, neither of which do I particularly associate myself with. I positively hate it when someone comes out with a stupid argument for the invasion. It doesn't help. I want to slap a lot of Fox News people upside the head.
I consider myself largely a Libertarian. Idealistically, Libertarians believe in practically no foreign policy -- live and let live. However, I also know that like most ideals, it is realistically impractical to try to adhere to 100% -- we don't live in a vaccuum.
Here's an Iraqi blog I like to read:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
I think the guy has a pretty good handle on the situation. Of course, that's just my opinion ;-)
...after a reply bringing up the US's mistakes in the Middle East
And after a reply bringing up the US's mistakes in the region and world opposition to the Iraq invasion.... I had the (preceding) to say...
Looting and US Troops' policing (tank crushing taxi video)
So this man had no problems taking other people's livlihoods from them by looting, but complains when his livlihood is taken from him. I understand that the punishment seems, and probably is, disproportionate; but….
One can't, on one hand, criticize the US forces for not doing enough to stop looting while at the same time criticizing them doing what they can to deter it. There are 25,000,000 Iraqis, and what, 140,000 soldiers -- mostly kids -- some, who, unfortunately can be brash in their decision-making. In a situation like this one can't excactly set up a court of law. I can easily imagine Saddam crushing the taxi with the man in it. Islamic law would have his hand cut off. This man walked away with life and limb intact.
I'm no cart blanc Bush supporter (I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for Gore), but I do not believe he is an evil man in any way. I don't belive the US is completely off base in what it's doing. There is certainly a lot of tragedy that I'm very glad is not my own, but then again there was a lot of tragedy before as well. The US certainly makes mistakes, but it's very easy for the rest of the world to sit back and criticize what the US is doing while they would do nothing. As a matter of fact, the US even gets criticized when it does nothing. It was roundly criticized for not removing Saddam in 1991, just as it would have been roundly criticized for doing just that, even then. Now that it has done just that, it's getting criticized anyway. We're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't.
In general, you won't find me siding exclusively with the left or with the right on most issues. I do recognize propaganda from both sides when I see it. The right would have us belive that we know what's going on and everything's under control. The left would have us believe that there is an evil conspiriacy whose goals range from genocide or war on a particular religion to lust for the control of oil. I don't believe either one of them. I do believe that the real situation is much more complicated than either side is willing to make it. Liberals call me conservative. Conservatives call me liberal. That's probably because I refuse to be polarized. I see where the administration is going with this (it's not what most uneducated Bush supporters think -- it has very little directy to do with Bin Laden), and I also recognize the dangers and the pitfalls. I think people who believe Bush administration does not also understand the dangers and pitfalls generally have more of an axe to grind with its party than its policy. Ultimately, I believe more in the good side of human nature than the bad side, and I hope that the plan works because really, there's no going back now.
Because if the US pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (or even on July 1), it would be roundly criticized.
One can't, on one hand, criticize the US forces for not doing enough to stop looting while at the same time criticizing them doing what they can to deter it. There are 25,000,000 Iraqis, and what, 140,000 soldiers -- mostly kids -- some, who, unfortunately can be brash in their decision-making. In a situation like this one can't excactly set up a court of law. I can easily imagine Saddam crushing the taxi with the man in it. Islamic law would have his hand cut off. This man walked away with life and limb intact.
I'm no cart blanc Bush supporter (I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for Gore), but I do not believe he is an evil man in any way. I don't belive the US is completely off base in what it's doing. There is certainly a lot of tragedy that I'm very glad is not my own, but then again there was a lot of tragedy before as well. The US certainly makes mistakes, but it's very easy for the rest of the world to sit back and criticize what the US is doing while they would do nothing. As a matter of fact, the US even gets criticized when it does nothing. It was roundly criticized for not removing Saddam in 1991, just as it would have been roundly criticized for doing just that, even then. Now that it has done just that, it's getting criticized anyway. We're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't.
In general, you won't find me siding exclusively with the left or with the right on most issues. I do recognize propaganda from both sides when I see it. The right would have us belive that we know what's going on and everything's under control. The left would have us believe that there is an evil conspiriacy whose goals range from genocide or war on a particular religion to lust for the control of oil. I don't believe either one of them. I do believe that the real situation is much more complicated than either side is willing to make it. Liberals call me conservative. Conservatives call me liberal. That's probably because I refuse to be polarized. I see where the administration is going with this (it's not what most uneducated Bush supporters think -- it has very little directy to do with Bin Laden), and I also recognize the dangers and the pitfalls. I think people who believe Bush administration does not also understand the dangers and pitfalls generally have more of an axe to grind with its party than its policy. Ultimately, I believe more in the good side of human nature than the bad side, and I hope that the plan works because really, there's no going back now.
Because if the US pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (or even on July 1), it would be roundly criticized.
A Year Later
It's been a year now. No WMD have been found. Things stand somwhere between the optimistic goals of the Bush administration and the pessimistic doom of war opponents. No surprise there.
I went to lunch with some friends yesterday -- people I like a lot and hold in high regard as human beings... however, politically we're pretty divergent when it comes to this. One of them sent me a clip of an army tank crushing the vehicle of an apparent looter -- his taxi, his livlihood as an example of the "heavy handedness" of the American forces.
As the Jackson 5 put it... "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, baby..."
And on top of that, I had a few other problems with that assertion... so I replied. I'll post my ramblings next: (of course, this is a blog, so you'll have to go "up" to the next post)
I went to lunch with some friends yesterday -- people I like a lot and hold in high regard as human beings... however, politically we're pretty divergent when it comes to this. One of them sent me a clip of an army tank crushing the vehicle of an apparent looter -- his taxi, his livlihood as an example of the "heavy handedness" of the American forces.
As the Jackson 5 put it... "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, baby..."
And on top of that, I had a few other problems with that assertion... so I replied. I'll post my ramblings next: (of course, this is a blog, so you'll have to go "up" to the next post)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)