March 20, 2006

Third Warniversary Summary: American Military Casualties: 2,317. American Wounded: 17,004. Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 37,795 (estimated). Total Cost of the War: $320 billion - NOT! Number of WMD Found: 0. Number of Administration Officials Held Accountable for Iraq Debacle: Zero.

censure favored. Rumsfeld, Cheney should resign. More info. Or, read how mad the Iraqis were to discover we forgot the anniversary.

posted by petebest 18 years ago
  • *gomichild just weeps quietly into a tissue*
  • (Is now an appropriate time to say "we told you so?")
  • Wow. But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.
  • It speaks well for the quality of this site that people feel they should put on-topic comments in small tags.
  • It's a terrible story, and probably the inevitable consequences of a large guerilla-style war. But there was too much of it, hence, teh sm4ll. So, this is the first day of the fourth year of this war. I'd like to go back to 2003, dig up some Ann Coulter or Sean Insanity type pro-war Toby Keithisms and paste them in. But I'm too tired.
  • (Is now an appropriate time to say "we told you so?") Yes, mon capitaine, it most certainly is.
  • Not that those aren't valid points, petebest, but in fairness: 1 mass murdering dictator deposed and arrested, 1 democracy installed in a key Middle East country, 1 Iraqi Constitution drafted and voted for by 78% of Iraqi population. Number of people who incorrectly predicted millions of deaths and casualties: lots, including German politicians, Medact, the UN and Ted Kennedy. Number of people who believed Saddam had WMD: lots, including Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and the UN, to name a few. In three years, we've gone from a brutal, murderous dictatorship who had a demonstrated dislike of other people and other countries and a demonstrated weapons program, to a constitutionally governed free Iraq. This is something to celebrate besides the bloodshed on Iraq's 3rd Anniversary of war.
  • there was too much of it, hence, teh sm4ll I dig it - sorry if that came across as snarkolicious, brother, it weren't meant to. Also I lost my glasses recently ;)
  • Number of people who incorrectly predicted millions of deaths and casualties: lots, including German politicians But there's only been thousands! YOU STUPID GERMANS! HA HA HA!
  • johann hari: After three years, after 150,000 dead, why I was wrong about Iraq
  • That isn't to say, petebest, that I am ignoring the issues at hand. I appreciate your position and feelings on your end. The question is, was it worth it? I think so, though I've had my doubts recently about the ability of the factions to unite in both governmental responsibility and against the terror groups in their own midst. To achieve a cohesive govt, they must unite, compromise, and set aside their differences and strive for something greater than their own tribal instincts. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? Hard to say at this point. But there's only been thousands! YOU STUPID GERMANS! I admit, that looks bad. However the fact is, this is a conflict with far fewer casualties than most people predicted. Certainly not Vietnam proportions, as has been claimed many times by detractors.
  • Your points are valid as well, f8x, but I disagree with your assessment of the current situation. I believe that we have deposed a violent secular dictator who had neither designs for nor intentions of violence against the US and are in the process of replacing it with a fundamentalist theocratic government in which democracy will surely and rapidly recede to a point resembling the "democracy" in Iran, replete with the intent and, eventually, capability of violence against the US and any insufficiently dogmatic Islamic government in the region.
  • That figure of 37,795 is from the Iraq Body Count page which only counts deaths reported in the media. The Johns Hopkins study published in the Lancet gave a much more accurate picture and given that nearly a year and a half has passed since then the total will be considerably higher.
  • To achieve a cohesive govt, they must unite, compromise, and set aside their differences and strive for something greater than their own tribal instincts. Can it be done? Yes. Hmmm. In that part of the world the answer has been "no", repeatedly, for thousands of consecutive years. Somehow I doubt that this is the magic moment of rationalism.
  • In three years, we've gone from a brutal, murderous dictatorship who had a demonstrated dislike of other people and other countries and a demonstrated weapons program, to a constitutionally governed free Iraq. So, F8x, are you willing to go vacation there? How about if we raised the cost of a ticket for you? If your work asked you to transfer to Baghdad for a year, would you accept?
  • Not to beat up on the lone dissenter here, but there are plenty in the world who would describe the US as "a brutal, murderous democracy who has a demonstrated dislike of other people and other countries and a demonstrated weapons program." Guess it depends upon where you sit.
  • There are plenty of (reasonably) functioning, stable democracies -- even so-called "First World" countried -- that I wouldn't want to vacation at, nor be transferred for work, so I think your analogy rings false, chriss.
  • I'm in agreement with chimaera on this one. f8xmulder: I understand and agree with your individual points, but I disagree with the overall assesment. I see that we have deposed an evil dictator, and installed an evil civil war, a civil war for which our politicians bear the completel burden of responsibility (those who would say "rival tribes!" - I point you to T.E. Lawrence.) Furthermore, the outcome of this civil war, I strongly believe, will be to deeply unseat the stability of the Middle East, and ultimately, worsen my own American way of life. The discourse on MoFi is wonderfully rational and level headed, especially with individuals such as yourself, f8x. I honestly and rationally think that Bush, Cheney, et al should be tried at the Hague as war criminals for instituting, creating, and supporting an ethnic war. Incompetence is not a very good defense.
  • >Number of people who believed Saddam had WMD: lots Number of sitting presidents who knew the WMD were part of a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at (undemocratically) manipulating the US into going to war: one. Should liars not be held accountable if some people believe them? >Number of people who incorrectly predicted millions of deaths and casualties: lots Number of people sitting at my computer right now who think that ~100,000 dead civilians, while less than 'millions', are still too many: one. >1 democracy installed in a key Middle East country Seems to me what's been installed is an occupying army, in the absence of which (and for that matter, even in the presence of which) God knows what will happen. Violent anarchy barely staved off by military force is not democracy. It also seems to me that democracy, by definition, is something you cannot 'install' in somebody else's country...
  • I tihnk you mean "a constitutionally governed free Iraq" in a state of civil war. They weren't doing that three years ago. Oh, and American aggression towards Iran wouldn't have been seen as part of a pattern if Iraq hadn't been invaded. But of course, the price of oil would possibly have been higher.
  • I have a very high degree of confidence when I say that history will bear out not only the moral and ethical and leadership failures which are well known and documented, but a profound and as-yet unrealized pragmatic failure of the Iraq war: the overextension of the American armed forces on a discretionary conflict is leaving them incapable of a quick and decisive outcome against what was the larger (and only genuine) threat in the region all along: Iran. And for those who may seek to equate my opposition to the war in Iraq with unwillingness to "bring democracy" to an "enslaved people under dictatorship" please refer to my absolute support for the action in Afghanistan against the Taliban as well as my prediction that Iran is the venomous head that will grow after Bush's personal vendetta cut off the ugly and noisy, but ultimately non-threatening head of Iraq.
  • Riverbend: Three Years...
  • Anybody who is unfamiliar (as I was) with Operation Ajax will find this to be interesting reading on Iran. So much for championing democracy.
  • Blood for money. We had/have no business there.
  • "In three years, we've gone from a brutal, murderous dictatorship who had a demonstrated dislike of other people and other countries and a demonstrated weapons program, to a constitutionally governed free Iraq." No offense, and I know good people think this is so, but even if it is true (which is highly debatable) at what cost have we bought a constitution for another country? In three years, America has become more brutal, secretive, high-handed, duplicitous and immoral. The United States has demonstrated its disregard for any other point of view other than the government's specious pronouncements, handy with an un-American label. We have gone from a nation of laws to a nation of secret decrees, imperiling our most basic human rights. Looks to me like the terrorists have at least one this stage of the battle--completely undermining rights and basic assumptions common to an entire nation's political history. I don't recognize my country sometimes, except through the outrage at the lack of traction any of the dozen or so current atrocities should have to pull down this smug, self-satisfied, amoral crumbutts.
  • I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired. Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots. School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up- more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday. I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year more than they’ve been in school. I’m especially worried about the Arba3eeniya this year. I’m worried we’ll see more of what happened to the Askari mosque in Samarra. Most Iraqis seem to agree that the whole thing was set up by those who had most to gain by driving Iraqis apart. I’m sitting here trying to think what makes this year, 2006, so much worse than 2005 or 2004. It’s not the outward differences- things such as electricity, water, dilapidated buildings, broken streets and ugly concrete security walls. Those things are disturbing, but they are fixable. Iraqis have proved again and again that countries can be rebuilt. No- it’s not the obvious that fills us with foreboding. The real fear is the mentality of so many people lately- the rift that seems to have worked it’s way through the very heart of the country, dividing people. It’s disheartening to talk to acquaintances- sophisticated, civilized people- and hear how Sunnis are like this, and Shia are like that… To watch people pick up their things to move to “Sunni neighborhoods” or “Shia neighborhoods”. How did this happen? Yeah, not better. Worse.
  • Predictions of a better Middle East have evaporated I think the official administration line that we "took out a ruthless dictator" to stop his WMD program, and "installed democracy" which will take hold across the region, is not without it's beneficial vignettes. such as The first free election, etc. But that's just too simplistic to really assess where we are after three years. These angles need to be looked at: Financial - How did we lose 9 billion there? Why are we paying Halliburton 240 Million in overcharges that our own Pentagon says not to pay? The troops - 4 tours of duty? 2 years for National Guard? Less benefits? Only allowed right-wing media there? VA benefits being cut? The oil - record profits in the history of corporate America? Wow, that's awkward. Good thing the oil execs weren't under oath that time. Women's rights lessened due to onset of theocracy proper? Basic electric & water services still intermittent 3 years later? Borders soaking in new terrorists who weren't there 3 years ago? Chaotic gang violence without end? All on our dime? Doesn't work for me, I can't buy the administration's line anymore (not that I didn't suspect they were lying from the get go). Will it take one more year of random violent insanity and huge sums of money to tip the scales of opinion that perhaps this war was ill-conceived, poorly executed, and willfully corrupted.
  • >>Why are we paying Halliburton 240 Million in overcharges that our own Pentagon says not to pay? I hope you're not suggesting there's anything improper going on. 'Cause Cheney says there isn't, you know, he's completely divested himself and so on. He SAID so. How shit like this ever passes the initial sniff test is beyond me. We have to listen to this crap about 'the liberal media' but nobody even has any QUESTIONS for these people. I know, singing to the choir, but it's *infuriating*.
  • Absolutely. One of the reasons NPR is losing me as a listener. 50% of the story is what the administration puts out, 40% is weak analysis and 10% is mewly questioning about maybe we're being lied to.
  • to a constitutionally governed free Iraq. It's a theocracy, right? Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants. -The outcome of the Afghanistan war was that theocracy. The judge sounds determined to carry out the death sentence for being Christian.
  • "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." --Robert E. Lee (1807 - 1870) I think that illustrates a good point. How many of us feel like we're at war? "All Presidential actions made legal" notwithstanding.
  • From the boingboing archive: Thursday, March 20, 2003 Media giant ClearChannel sponsoring pro-war rallies Story in yesterday's Chicago Trib examining the questionable propriety of the nation's largest radio station owner sponsoring pro-war-in-Iraq rallies: In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies. The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Good times. Clear Channel, I hope you die a gruesome corporate death, and soon.
  • Oh, and this gem: Monday, March 31, 2003 French's Mustard: Eat me! I'm not French! Mustard-maker goes on the PR offensive amid nationwide fits of wartime anti-France fervor: "The only thing French about French's Mustard is the name," the company announced. The mustard-maker said it felt obliged to hire a PR company to set the record straight after some media reports suggested it was being -- or should be -- boycotted because of its "French" links. A report on CNN apparently showed one restaurant replacing French's mustard with a Heinz product. "For the record, French's would like to say there is nothing more American than French's Mustard," it said, referring to its New York origins.
  • Is that whole French thing still going on? Zut, alors. What about Franco-American spaghetti? Bridging the gap. Now THERE's a uniter.
  • Is it still going on? Not so much. Should it *ever* have gone on? FUCK no. (Pardon my Freedomese)
  • 600,000 excess deaths.
  • I'd love mandyman to comment on the methodology of this survey here. Like as how she is right across stats (among other things), and all that.
  • Eek, the 600K deaths thing, obvs. *bows to mm*
  • I assume that the number crunching itself is sound. The real question is to what extent they were able to avoid getting a biased sample. Though the sample size should help. The scary thing is that the numbers aren't that outlandish if you look at them at the city level. It's only when you add them up that it looks like a catastrophe. from juancole here There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed. and West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end. Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe?
  • Hey, where's f8xmulder gone? Hasn't he something postive to add about the 600,000 deaths thing?
  • Did Saddam kill 600,000 people in the last three years of his regime?
  • Y'know, when you take the "HA! You were wrong! Told you so!" tack, it isn't really helpful. f8x may have been wrong, but he wasn't coming from an evil place with it. And "I told you so!" makes it seem like winning an argument is more important to you than those 600,000.
  • No, but I do wish the supporters of this war would take responsibility for their mistakes and mistaken opinions.
  • I do too, but taking responsibility for poor or "bad" decisions doesn't seem likely. That logic breaks down into something that reminds me of an alzheimer sufferer's story: Elderly man: *soils pants* Nurse: Did you make a mess? Elderly man: No, that other guy did it. Y'know? As someone around here has it, the mind squirrel skitters off. Also, those soccer Moms in Ohio don't believe they had a hand in the death of any innocents. Just because they voted for Bush doesn't mean they . . I mean supporting a war is . . they . . blah.
  • Did Saddam kill 600,000 people in the last three years of his regime? No but the UN had estimated, prior to the war, sanctions on medical supplies killed around 500,000 children. Before this war started a friend of mine and I discussed the position of Saddam. We both agreed that Saddam was a necessary evil, but he is only necessary in the context of the continued intervention of the US in the Middle East. If we had not propped him up during Iran-Iraq and not supported other repressive regimes in the area, the amount of religious fundamentalism would not be fired up to the level it is today. The problem mostly stems from the continuation of regimes that maintain a population in poverty for the benefit of a few. If the Us would have never attacked Iraq, and instead invested in it to the point of ridiculous development, Saddam would have been choked to death by the quality of life among Iraqi people. This would have been less expensive too. The seeds for secretarian violence would have been very hard to take root. The current administration caters to the racist ideal that Middle Easterners are backwards, when really they are just poor. Of course Hugo Chavez is a dictator too, even though he is democratically elected in an election Carter praised. As for Iran, as much as you may hate it. The Iranian government is VERY popular. It may not be your government, but it is definitely the government of the Iranian people. I could not say the same of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
  • But only temporarily.
  • Nearly half a million Iraqi refugees are now living in unsustainable conditions in Syria. "Thousands of Iraqis flee the country every month, especially to Syria and Jordan, preferring to live under deteriorating conditions than suffer with the continued bad security situation countrywide" Local NGOs put the estimated Iraqi community in Syria at 800,000: the majority of them children under the age of 18 living in the suburbs of Damascus in cramped conditions with few prospects for education or employment. Before the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, the number of Iraqis living in Syria was estimated at 100,000.
  • . And in the honor of capt., "Whiskey, tango, foxtrot!!?"
  • For a dead guy, Elvis is remarkably healthy.
  • Shiite militia seizes Iraqi city The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies... About 800 black-clad militiamen with Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were patrolling city streets in commandeered police vehicles... No tiny band of brothers...
  • Though, a bit played down from the BBC.
  • What Feathers Are For I don’t want to be a daddy because daddies die. —Jack Shanaberger, age 4, to his mother after his father was killed in Iraq. That racket’s a baby woodpecker, plump and soft as a gland. Its tinier mother—a clockworks toy—drills for bugs upside down, and swivels to stuff her squawking fledgling’s craw. It’s June: baby crows refuse to grow up. Half-hopping, half-flapping oversized infants, they won’t trust wings and pretend to forget how to fly in clumsy pursuit of one more free meal. Even eaglets, born to be lords of the air, plummet as much as they soar. In the absence of instinct, their learning curve is a precipice, sheer trial and mortal error teaching them what their feathers are for. When baby Astyanax howled the truth on a tower in Troy, shining Hector put off the bronze helmet. Godlike, he laid the terrible plumes in the dirt. Yes, he said. And, mortal, kissed his mortal boy. Copyright © 2006 Ann Lauinger All rights reserved from The National Poetry Review Reprinted by Verse Daily® with permission
  • Bush holds Iraq strategy talks Setting: White House Oval Office [Enter chimpy] [Enter rummy] *chimpy pats rummy's backside* *rummy smiles* *chimpy farts* [Enter Gen. Abizaid] *all exchange backside pats* chimpy: So, what's the story on the streets General? I've heard rumors of unrest. Is this true? *rummy blinks* Gen. Abizaid: Sir, we're SOL. *rummy blinks* chimpy: This is good news General! *rummy blinks twice* Gen. Abizaid: Sir, I said we're fucked, with a capital F. *rummy has a slight forhead nerve twitch* chimpy: We will implement this new strategy at once General. Thank you for your time and effort. God bless you. *rummy blinks* *General Abizaid blinks* *chimpy farts* *chimpy pats General Abizaid's backside* [exit all]
  • ))! And well H-dogged to boot! *applauds while chewing popcorn, checking out chicks in the audience*
  • Wait a sec, we've got popcorn *and* chicks in this audience?!
  • She says she's a chick. "Quidina" or something.
  • Endgame
  • from the iraq deaths study link: The cross-sectional household cluster sample survey method used is a standard, robust, well-established method for gathering health data. and not just health data. most national statistics offices use cluster samples for monthly data on economic indicators. these data can be off by a little, but they're generally good indicators.
  • Can anyone define "victory", cause I don't think the politicians have a clue?
  • You think anyone has a clue?
  • Did you guys know that gays want to get married?! God my new Range Rover is so fucking plush! And it gets like almost 22 mph on the highway! Don't forget to vote!
  • Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton [retired]: "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for."
  • "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for." O RLY? (from the 2nd H-dogg link) "The Iraq situation is not winnable in any real sense of the word 'winnable,'" said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was chief of the Middle East desk of the National Security Council for the elder Bush and director of policy planning in the State Department during President Bush's first term Oh why - WHY didn't anyone tell us this before the invasion?
  • ACT II Setting: "Dunking Pool Room," Camp Cropper, Baghdad Iraq Background music: to the tune of Mr. Ed, "A Dunk is a Dunk, Of Course, Of Course!" [lights fade to a spot at the water's edge] [Enter unnamed guard #1] [Enter unnamed guard #2, pulling a shackled and blindfolded Tariq Aziz] *unnamed guard #1 pats unnamed guard #2's backside* *Tariq incoherent, muffled speech* *unnamed guard #2 farts* *unnamed guard #1 kneels down and runs hand across the smooth porcelin tile lining the dunking pool* unnamed guard #1: We've been waiting to try you out! I grouted you myself! *unnamed guard #2 lights a cigarette* unnamed guard #2: So is it true, that a "dunk" is just a dunk? *unnamed guard #1 urinates into the dunking pool* unnamed guard #1: Ask yourself, "what is a dunk in the water?" Why, don't be daft boy! A dunk in the water is just simply that, a dunk in the water, of course! [Tariq is strapped to metal chair, suspended over the dunking pool with a rope and pulley] *more muffled sounds from Tariq, increasing in volume* unnamed guard #2: I could use me some fresh young poon tang tonight! After we're done here, how about we go for a "milk run?" *unnamed guard #2 stuffs cigarette in one of Tariq's nostrils* *unnamed guard #1 releases the rope tension* *both unnamed guards stare at bubbles floating to surface of the dunking pool* unnamed guard #1: Booyah! [spotlight fades on dark, struggling shadow of Tariq fully submerged in dunking pool] [background music fades] [exit all]
  • Hussein Verdict: News at 11. Media Should be Asking How and Why Saddam Verdict Was Set for Two Days Before Midterm Elections.
  • It's not quite as exciting as Caesar parading Vercingetorix through Rome, but it will have to do...
  • Well said!
  • Bears repeating!
  • No worries. Rush Limbaughful is here to point out the timing of exactly these kinds of obvious election-tampering schemes. Justice will be served! One can only hope.
  • The trial of Saddam is pointless to me at this point-and-time. The outcome changes nothing that *has* happened or *will* happen in Iraq. So go ahead White House, do your little song and dance when the verdict is read forced on November 5. Surely, it will be another claimed victory on an otherwise completely botched and manufactured operation.
  • British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il Only YoMama Been Laiden is more afeared.
  • Year Five Begins Four years ago on Monday, our nation launched an ill-conceived war of choice in Iraq. The war has claimed the lives of nearly 3,200 American troops; wounded tens of thousands more, thousands of them grievously. It has brought our military's readiness to the lowest levels since the Vietnam war, cost billions of dollars; and significantly damaged the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world.
  • In a poll of more than 2000 Iraqis, less than 40% said things were good in their lives, compared to 71% two years ago 38% said the situation in the country was better than before the 2003 war 50% said it was worse 88% said electricity and fuel supplies were poor 18% said they had confidence in US and coalition troops .
  • We were greeted as liberators!
  • and yet, I have to wonder what happens if/when we were to leave. Eventually, there would be peace, but does anyone question that such a peace would be over stacks of dead Kurds and Shi'a? If anything, this will end up being a cautionary tale for any politician considering direct interventionary assistance to a foreign country. Iraq will end, eventually, as all things do. But I think it will be a loooooooooong time before America is willing to take an active part in any conflict abroad. The World's Policeman is going off-duty, but I don't know that this is entirely a good thing.
  • Regardless of how it ends, and "stacks of dead Kurds and Shi'a" seems to be inevitable no matter what anyone does, invading in the first place will be seen as one the biggest mistakes made in the past 100 years. Oh, and Bush sucks.
  • Eventually, there would be peace . . . Iraq will end, eventually, as all things do. I dunno about either one of those assertions. I seriously doubt there was ever a chance of a winnable peace, much less of an actual democracy existing for long there. (The "Iraqis Vote" thread is good for that discussion, though.) And US involvement there is likely set for generations, as everyone who knew what they were talking about warned. (I say 'warned' as opposed to 'advised' because peace is unlikely and great costs are certain. The Century for New American Progress (feat. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld) and other participating neoconservative think tanks that set this policy have been proven wrong at every single step of the way.) Either way MHO is that it was extraordinarily wrongheaded and peculiarly malcompetent of this administration to invade Iraq. What will it take for the staunch pro-war Bush supporters and neoconservatives to admit they were wrong about Iraq? 2 trillion spent? One million dead? Ten years of civil war? What? The utter failure of these Iraq decisions seem to be inconceivable for some people. Even I gave some credit to the administration at one point - "They must know something I don't to be so belligerent, even far-right wing Republicans can't be that wrong about such high stakes issues." But they were that wrong. And the fourth warniversary sees them continuing to be so in the face of so much simple common sense evidence to the contrary.
  • I don't know what to tell you, Pete. I disagree with much of what you say, but it is stated in such a way that it's impossible to refute.
  • *is very glad Fes is back* I think the thing that gets me about the stats in the link I posted above has nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong to invade, or WMDs, or lying or misguided politicians, or who warned whom or whatever ... it's the fact that Saddam Hussein was a pathological homicidal nutjob bastard, and yet, somehow, we've managed to fuck up reconstruction so badly that a full 50 per cent think they had it better when he was in charge. This makes me so sad and ashamed and angry that it kinda renders all the rest of the arguments moot for me right now. It's easier said than done, I know, and I don't have any cunning plan as to how to achieve it so this is a pointless comment, but can we please just get these poor people electicity and water and basic services already! Not living under a mass-murdering dictatorship any longer is meant to be a good thing! /rant off
  • Here's the thing: that sort of stuff, electricity, water, trash pickup, the usual boring infrastructure of urban life - how is the American Army supposed to get those things going?? OK, admittedly, at least some of the damage was due to the invasion. BUT that invasion ended literally years ago. The reason (I think, someone tell me if I'm wrong here) that there is not power on now is because the substantions keep getting sabotaged by the factions in the onging civil unpleantries. Americans aren't blowing up Iraqi power plants - IRAQIS are blowing up Iraqi power plants, and while one could make the point that none of that would be happening if we hadn't gone in there in the first place (true), to which I could make the point that peace through secret policing your ethnic and political enemies does not a middle eastern utopia make (also at least somewhat demonstrably true), the point is, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We're operating over there on the idea (much more proximic today than yesterday) that, at some relatively near date, we are going to hand off the whole shmear to the locals. How do we walk that line? thanks mothy :) Nice to be back
  • When you invade a country, you know that the infrastructure is going to get messed up. You also know that there will be at least some opposition to your presence, whether you're dethroning a dictator or not. And you plan for improving civilians' quality of life as soon as physically possible. I agree that some of the current damage is being done by various Iraqi factions, but the point is that the coalition has had 4 sodding years to get this back on track, and have singularly failed. Not the fault of the people on the ground doing the work, but of those who planned the jaunt in the first place. And that is shameful. The violent reactions of Iraqis are understandable to an extent: they're fighting an occupying force that has failed for four years to get their electricity back - hell, I'd be livid too. Violence is not the way to go about rectifying the situation, but the sentiment behind the violence is understandable, I think. And reconstruction isn't up to the American Army, it's up to all those juicy contractors who got paid lots and lots and lots of money to do it. And haven't. Like I say, at this point I have no idea what the answer is, but it behooves us to keep trying to come up with one because, dang, we broke this but good. Let contentious forces (US and UK) leave and send in a less controversial (UN?) instead? Get rid of the miliary presence and send in a squad of diplomats to quell the in-fighting? Take the money for reconstruction from those who currently hold it and let the aid agencies have a go? I dunno. Wish I did.
  • > Eventually, there would be peace, but does anyone question that such a peace would be over stacks of dead Kurds and Shi'a? I think the majority of casualties would be Sunni, in the event of a US withdrawal. The Kurds can take pretty good care of themselves and will probably unilaterally secede, and the Shia are already a well-armed majority. An interesting question is what will Turkey do if the Kurds secede - there's a serious danger of significant further bloodshed. I'm not sure that the US presence in Iraq is enough to keep the Kurds on board, but a withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a parting of ways at this point.
  • *Is also glad to have Fes back, for the record, lest an unfortunate bent towards strident tone suggest anything to the contrary* yet, somehow, we've managed to fuck up reconstruction Two points about that: (1) It's abundantly clear that planning is not this administration's forte. They knew they were invading and occupying without a clear reconstruction plan. Unless you buy that the troops would be welcomed as liberators and democracy would spring forth and flourish immediately. Outside of that hair-brained neocon fantasy, the reconstruction wasn't thought about because they were in too big a hurry to send troops and start war. (2) "Reconstruction" is a way to say "getting life back to normal" for a region where 'normal' isn't. Electricity and garbage collection have never been ubiquitous (as I understand it - IANAMES - I am not a MidEast Scholar). Simply put, this region is full of violent, cyclical strife. Any person who's read "Iraq for Dummies" could tell this administration that, and tried to. They didn't want to listen. It may not be exclusively about the oil, but it's not about terrorism either. This enterprise was doomed from the start and it's the reason previous administrations stayed well away from conflict in that area. They were smart enough to exert influence through diplomatic means and not stomp in there with a huge army. Do I have a plan for "winning in Iraq"? No. Nor should I need one. Winning is not on the table. (Or, if it is - define "winning".) Folks, we'll be lucky to get out in 10 years' time having only spent 3 trillion dollars and no further escalation of violence in the area. LUCKY. The decision to go to war in Iraq was so grievously miscalculated and so aggressively, even criminally prosecuted that I can only marvel at the continued fog pouring out of this administration, as they are constantly amazed it's not going well. I want the invasion to be popularly recognized as a neoconservative plan to reshape middle eastern (oil-rich) politics through violence and aggression. That's wrong. And these people who forced the issue by cooking the evidence of WMD's and grossly mis-characterizing terrorist ties need to be held accountable for the costs both at the polls and in the courts. Okay thanks, apparently I needed to get that out.
  • Starting with Roryk's comment, I think what Turkey will do depends largely on the status of their EU application. If they feel that there's a significant chance of finally getting in, they won't want to jeopardize their chances, keep a tight rein on any violence, and simply grin and bear it. OTOH, if they feel that their application is doomed no matter what, then they will pursue agenda, and damn the consequences. Unfortunately, it looks like the latter, and I suspect for reasons which have more to do with keeping Turks out of Europe than any justified principle under the EU application as such. As for Iraq itself, it was always my opinion that as the insurgency was based out of an opposition to American presence in and of itself, that as soon as a withdrawal date was announced, that the violence would drop dramatically (although not disappear). People would either not see the point of fighting Americans since they were leaving anyway, or, more cynically, they would save their resources for fighting each other later. However, I increasingly have the view that that opportunity has passed, and that even if a withdrawal date were announced, that there is just so much ill-will towards the Americans that violence borne of frustration or revenge would carry on for a good long while yet. This morning in the ceeb, there was a news report about the political and economic dichotomy between the Shia and Sunni in Bahrain, how the Shia majority of 70% was governed by the Sunni elite. The man-on-the-street interview was saying that the imbalances had to end, that they were too extraordinary to continue. The Sunni would have to accept the fact that violence would erupt if the inequities continued, and that out of self-preservation, they would have to make a deal. So driving along, I was thinking -- the Sunni have been in control, politically and economically, since the very time of Mohammed's death. This is not a new thing. What made this man think that things were going to change now, as opposed to any other time in Islamic history? By extension, this is Iraq's problem as well. These are fights that predate everything -- the United States, the political alignments of 1920, Oil -- maybe there is no solution other than leaving the Iraqis to fight each other over these ancient matters. An outsider cannot impose a solution to the Sunni-Shia conflict. An insider can impose one, or at least, keep the lid on it for a while. The resolution can only come from the parties involved, only there's centuries of bitterness and injustice to get past first. Perhaps that is the only 'solution' -- a recognition of the inevitable. I dunno. What I do know is that more of the same will not solve this, nor will saying 'I told you so'. Suffice to say that the leadership which made these decisions got it wrong, despite advice to the contrary. I don't know who does have the solutions, but at least I know it's not the guys who got everyone into this mess. Focussing on the who said what when is a purely American poltical matter, and does nothing to help the Iraqis themselves, which should be the priority, no matter one's poltical allegiance. (Which I say generally, and directed to no-one in particular.) OK, I'm done now.
  • When you invade a country, you know that the infrastructure is going to get messed up Very true. I wanted to point out that, four years down the road and taking in consideration the level of care the military took to avoid demolishing everything (which they could easily have done - I don't think people realize what pains were taken to not destroy Iraqi infrastructure. Now, one could say that this was in service to oil, not people, but that's a question of motive), the destruction caused then isn't the destruction being dealt with now. know that there will be at least some opposition to your presence True. The whole Paris/Aug'44 plan was a giant bag of wishful thinking on Rumsefled's part. you plan for improving civilians' quality of life as soon as physically possible Historically, this has been a verrry distant secondary concern. But here, I think that it was at least supposed to have been a consideration. But I think we are conflating the mere presence of American troops with the civilian issues, and that somehow, if all the American troops magically disappeared tomorrow, Baghdad's power would come back on and the car bombs in markets and university quads would stop. I think that the opposite is true - you'd have Sunni-Shi'a death squads pitching open battle for neighborhoods in the streets. Perhaps, as roryk points out, it would be the Sunni that caught the brunt, esp. in light of Iran's support for the Shi'a, but either way there'd be a lot of lead flying until statis was achieved. Right now, my impression is that we're assisting the Iraqi gov't in keeping the plates spinning until they can sneak past this part and come up with some workable compromise. [more]
  • they're fighting an occupying force that has failed for four years to get their electricity back that's a good point - they're fighting, when they should be *helping*. Fighting us forces us to stay in Iraq. If they really want us gone, they should be assisting in the rebuilding and not exacting old grudges, settling old scores, and generally taking advantage of a poor situation for factional benefit. if they really want us out of there, they should be out in droves paving the way for our departure. all those juicy contractors who got paid lots and lots and lots of money to do it There's truth to that. But they've taken their own losses, too - those profits have been bought in blood, and the work they have done has been undone by the same factions mentioned above, to the point that it's not a matter of fixing something and moving on, but fixing something, fixing it again when it is sabotaged, and continuing to both fix it and guard it going foward. There's a lot execrable about the contractors and mercenaries employed during this war, but again it comes down to the idea that if Iraq wants them out, they need to make it unnecessary for them to stay. Let contentious forces (US and UK) leave and send in a less controversial (UN?) instead? I wish! But I think the UN didn't enjy getting checkmated by Bush at the beginning of the war, so they are enjoying a nice wad of schadenfreude now that it's going poorly. They won't send anyone, even if they had someone to send. The UN has no standing forces, so far as I know (that used to be true, I could be mistaken about that now, though). I dunno either, mothninja. I wish I did. The complications of Iraq, well, they don't touch me personally. I have friends there, and friends who've been there and are back. But honestly, my life goes on as always - the problems in Iraq are for me, like for most of us, nearly purely academic. And yet, I would like to see the US come out of Iraq with at least some dignity and poise intact, and the Iraqis avoid suffering and bloodshed any further than they already have. And "my side" has made some really egregious mistakes, but I hate to consider the idea, as Pete proposes, that the entirety of the adventure was utterly wrong. Not only from the standpoint of my own stupification, but from a philosophical viewpoint on how best to deal with the Middle East. I like to think that I am one who can admit error - if I am unwilling to admit complete defeat (and I am - call me a wet-brained optimist, but I *still* think there is good to be salvaged in Iraq), then those who actually formulated this series of policies will never do so. An interesting question is what will Turkey do if the Kurds secede - there's a serious danger of significant further bloodshed On both sides, although I think that Turkey would effectively annex any Kurdistan that manifested itself, with all that northern Iraq oil along with it, putting the US once again in a diplomatic jackpot and a situation in which we would (once again) likely be forced to abandon the Kurds.
  • I would appreciate it if you guys would stop posting long enough for me to respond to the previously posted posts! I'll respond soon as I can
  • > It may not be exclusively about the oil, but it's not about terrorism either. I'm honestly not sure what it's about, but I think there are multiple dimensions to the oil thing: *donning realipolitik t-shirt* (1) Iraqi oil - securing low cost source of oil - very important for world economy; oil is inextricably linked to almost all productive endeavours and will be for some years to come. But this isn't enough of a reason, as there are other, much less complicated, sources of oil. (2) General heading of "affecting the influence the middle east has over world affairs due to its ownership of most of the oil": (2a) Middle eastern oil in general - promoting stability in the middle east by removing a dictator - important for long-term U.S. interests; good for Israel, but be careful not to overestimate Israel's importance to U.S. policy (may be disproportionate, but really most influential where U.S. and Israeli interests overlap). (2b) Promoting stability in the middle east by a demonstration effect - effectively saying "get in line or you're next"; advantages as above but more risky if resources are overstretched and there's no follow through. Note that military bases in Iraq are strategically more useful in the current context than bases in Saudi Arabia. (2c) Promoting instability in the middle east in the hope that regime change will catch on and the servile masses will arise, arise. (3) Various ancillary points: Saddam was going to switch to petro-euros, those close to the administration stood to gain from rises in oil prices, etc. -------- Re "people feeling better under Saddam", I've been thinking recently about Franco's Spain and talking to some people who lived under his rule. Compared to Saddam, Franco was arguably less evil, but he nevertheless overthrew a democratically elected government, bombed his own people, and tortured and executed dissidents. I'm trying to imagine an incursion into Spain by foreign forces, advised perhaps by Catalonians and Basques in exile. How would they be received? As liberators or invaders? Would the Spanish, even those who disliked and secretly opposed Franco, consider the stability of his regime peferable to the instability wrought by an invading force? All counterfactual, I know, but adds a dimension that I hadn't considered until recently. Talking to people about Franco, most hated the man but not enough to get into trouble. For many, the attitude at the time was to keep one's head down and try to make a living. As an aside: those obsessed with politics can find it difficult to accept that the majority of people have little or no interest; they just want to get on with life. My understanding is that conditions in Baghdad were reasonable before the invasion - the electricity worked, the water ran, the streets were safe. Compared to neighboring countries, people had above average levels of education and women had above average levels of freedom. I've no problem saying that Saddam was a bad man and unfit to lead his country. On a purely utilitarian level taking him out has not been worth it.
  • In the interim, this is funny.
  • Focussing on the who said what when is a purely American poltical matter, and does nothing to help the Iraqis themselves I strongly, and respectfully disagree, sir. The far-right politicians who assumed office in 2000 (via SCOTUS decision) rushed into our current Iraq situation not merely against advice, protest and extraordinarily rational argument, but in spite of it. They bent and broke regulations, rules, form, and laws to do it. They foisted an immature, meritless scenario in a dramatically partisan manner. They heedlessly rallied the mainstream media with the creation of memes such as "WMDs" "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" and "ties to terrorists". And they ruthlessly bullied the press with spin and steadfast refusal to hold Presidential press conferences or answer direct questions with anything but rhetoric. However five years into it, when most of the dire predictions have come true, it's increasingly our problem. Right. These arrogant Bush administration power-mad cretins have refused to "play" with anyone else for this long. It is time for them to stand accountable and also to get out of the way. Help for Iraq comes when these disgraces to our own democracy are dealt with. In that way "who said what when" it is not purely a political matter but, in a literal sense, an essential one.
  • also "MOM: There was a big sex." made me snort cola.
  • Sorry pete -- I see 'American political accountability' and 'solving the Iraq crisis' as two different things. Related, yes, obviously, but still different. Solving the Iraq crisis should be, in my mind, the priority, as people's lives are at stake because of a situation not of their making (speaking in a very broad sense). The solution to the Iraq crisis will not come from the leadership that started it. That much is clear. What should happen to that leadership for those failed decisions is a secondary matter. That isn't to say it's not important -- it is, but it's more or less an internal American affair. The humanitarian crisis is more pressing than what happens to the Bush administration. To put it bluntly, Iraq has been fucked over by the States. In the process, the States has fucked itself. I think it's far more just to address the fuckedness of the fuckee first, before moving onto the fuckedness of the fucker. IMHO, IANAD, YMMV, etc., etc.
  • The humanitarian crisis is more pressing than what happens to the Bush administration. Yep, absolutely. Or, to put it in the Lingua Renault, why and wherefore the fuckee got fucked is currently not as important as unfucking them. Also, very interesting Franco parallel roryk, thanks for that. *goes away to think about that one some more*
  • To put it bluntly, Iraq has been fucked over by the States. I'm apt to agree with roryk's comments above, and while the States is the most obvious "finger" behind what has happened to Iraq, many others are involved (albeit, I have the luxury of some "insider" info - - I almost hate to delve into these discussions because I'm not at liberty to freely discuss the info I've come in contact with, especially on the nets). I think I summed it up best here.
  • Regarding addressing the expletiv-ee prior to the expletive-er, point taken. And also too I forgot to mention: And yet, I would like to see the US come out of Iraq with at least some dignity and poise intact, and the Iraqis avoid suffering and bloodshed any further than they already have. Very much agreed. There is good to be had there simply because things are still going on.
  • Of course you're right, SMT. I was just painting using very broad strokes of fucking references.
  • *nods in appreciation of Capt's fucking* And I must say, it's nice to see a healthy discussion in this thread without meltdowns and kittens caught in trainwrecks. Please, continue...
  • Monkeyfilter: in appreciation of Capt's fucking
  • Good quote from this article, from Colonel Ed Brown of the British Rifles Regiment, "What we must do as coalition forces is to give as much support as we can without actually taking back the responsibility for security because it is very clearly theirs. Things are imperfect, but we make a huge mistake, and we will move down a road that will end in real failure, if we try and turn this into Surrey. It isn't. There is a level of violence here, but that is life in Iraq. It's been like this for thousands of years. It's not going to change."
  • It's been like this for thousands of years. It's not going to change. snark: This might have been something to weigh when considering enforcing democracy there. On our dime. With our army. /snark Normally I would think they (Bush admin) were told of this history and decided it was worth the gamble. But there are times - and I think justified ones - where I imagine they weren't even told. Just a bunch of political cronies nodding in ignorant agreement with what "a great idea" this was. There are recollections of Bush wondering out loud what the difference between Sunni and Shiite are. After the invasion. That's incredible to think. And now here we all are, entering the fifth year with still only a flicker of how bad it's going to be for a long time. 9/11 pulled us together and Bush spent it all on this. It's frustrating stuff. And as the US Attorney firing scandal (or just about any other GWBush era scandal) shows, the GOP views itself as working exclusively for the GOP, not America. That's pretty amazing by itself, but when it comes to War or occupation, it's just tiring to watch Fox News continue to flog the administration's position. If it's to get better, it would necessarily require that the popular media call it for what it was: A Very Bad Idea prosecuted by incompetents and allowed by The Press and us. That's not defeatist, it's not cowardly; it's practical, rational, and it's what John Adams would do - call bulls*** on it. Before the fifth, sixth, and any other 'warniversaries' roll around we have to call out Bush on the utter impracticality, if not outright impossibility, of the "mission" (what is the mission?) as well as call Fox News on the propagandizing. Although unlike the government, Fox News is probably irredeemable and should be removed by non-viewership means.
  • BBC's Question Time special to mark the anniversary of the invasion. Guests: Des Browne, John Bolton, Benazir Bhutto, Tony Benn, Charles Kennedy, Liam Fox. Available in real media or downloadable as mp4. Tony Benn hands Bolton's arse back to him a couple of times, and the mother of a British soldier who died in Iraq shows Browne up for a mealy-mouthed shyster. Her bit brought tears to my eyes, which is unusual for television.