It is very disappointing that some officers in the British and US military seem to have lost control over their troops in the manner that the reports in the media are highlighting. No, I am not about to join the ludicrous cat’s chorus equating the Allied forces with Saddam’s institutional mass murderers, but no one who actually cares about the mess in Iraq eventually ending the right way up can be anything less than dismayed.
Certainly I understand how the stresses of urban combat can lead to itchy trigger fingers but for the custodians of prisoners to have allowed this to happen is completely impossible to justify. That the perpetrators felt the need to take pictures of their criminal actions suggests that we are dealing with your common-or-garden variety of psychopath rather than people ‘merely’ brutalised into callous indifference or shooting first/asking questions later due to being in a combat zone.
The only way this can be salvaged is for the clear difference between the torturers of Iraq’s ancien regime and the US/UK’s militaries to me made starkly clear: the people responsible must be subjected to swift and decisive military justice.
And while we are on the subject of ‘what the military should be doing’, can anyone please explain why the Italians who were kidnapped in Iraq the other day had been disarmed by US troops at a checkpoint? Whilst the fighting against the Islamo-fascists seems to be progressing, in other ways the last few days have hardly been days to bask in the glow of a job being well done by some of ‘our boys’, which is a great pity indeed.
I cannot help thinking that whilst the leadership in-theatre did well during the conventional conflict, perhaps a far reaching change in local military commanders might not go amiss as it is not enough to just manage the battles in a situation like this.
War is a government program. Perry. What did you think would happen?
Surely a “libertarian” would know better than to hope the state could do anything right, much less actually hope the outcome would be anything less than the usual unintended consequences and shambles that any state program is.
Say, are you still supporting the war on humanitarian grounds?
Some damn fool in the US DoD has decided it’s not PC to have civilian contractors armed for self-protection.
Bollocks !!
Did you actually read what I wrote, tex? The fact some people did some criminal things does not change a thing, provided it is clear those things were not actually policy, which I do not think anyone (rational) is actually claiming. Sure, the war is a government program and we all know that government programs will always be riddled with sundry ghastliness, but that is not actually the point because simplistic remarks like ‘it is a government program’ are not relevant. Ba’athism was also a ‘government program’, as was Soviet Communism, hell, so are municipal libraries, judiciaries and health inspectors, all of which may or may not be legitimate functions of a state (most are not, of course)… but does that mean all government programs are the same? Clearly not. In an ideal world, if an independent military organisation like Sandline had taken Saddam down on a for-profit basis rather than on taxpayer’s dime, the actions in question would be no different morally.
I don’t understand why the coalition felt it necessary to re-use Abu Ghraib prison. Think how that looks to Iraqi eyes. Shouldn’t they have blown it up?
The recent items regarding atrocities by some U.S. and British troops, while isolated incidents (it seems), will of course be seized upon by all our old friends in the anti-war side to cover the fact that their claimed anarchy hasn’t happened. This isn’t helped by the fact that many of the right-wing blogs I’ve been reading have quietly avoided the issue when they should be slapping down the left wingers for attempting to make political capital out of a horror story.
As cynical as I can be, the events were shocking and disturbing to me, and that’s not easily done, I can tell you. I hold that while many troops in the U.S. Army may be somewhat naive “country boys”, the vast majority of them are men and women of honour and integrity. While I feel the same way regarding the modern British Army (who are in all likelihood more suited to “Hearts & Minds” operations than their American counterparts) history has taught me to be a little bit less surprised. Sorry if that causes offence to any British Samizdatistas, none is meant.
The worst part of course is that these brainless pricks haven’t just raised the ire of the pacifists (excusable in my book), but they have placed their honourable fellow Coalition soldiers in greater peril from those Islamofascists who are in positions to do them harm. Ultimately, it’s the decent guys and girls on the ground who’ll suffer for this.
It’s a rhetorical question of course, but just what were these failures for human beings thinking?
This thing looks worse and worse as more information comes out.
Complaints reached the office of the Secretary of Defense a while, judging from what Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yokrer on this subject. And contrary to what the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is saying, it looks like it was widespread.
Rumsfeld shoudl be preparing his resignation.
James – Atrocities? Atrocities?
“… for attempting to make political capital out of a horror story.” A horror story?
Don’t you think you are over-dramatising just a wee bit?
Certainly, it was boys behaving badly, but as Baraba Amiel says in today’s Telegraph, “Demanding that troops, who are subject on a daily basis to roadside bombs, suicide attacks, ambushes and rocket-propelled grenades, should respond without any cruel or unprofessional incidents would be a demand for sainthood. These troops face resentment and hatred from some of the very people they came to liberate…”.
And I would add, saw their companions in arms die to liberate …
But no one got hurt, for god’s sake! – and courts martial had already been scheduled in the US before the photos ever seeped out into the media.
Verity – have you read this? Your comment smacks of moral relativism.
Aral – Yes. I am on our side.
I didn’t know the New Yorker was still staggering on, but I guess as long as there are lefties walking around with delusions of intellectualism and moral superiority, it will find an audience.
People who sign up for the military do not have the same mindset as people who work at Citizens’ Advice Bureaux.
Re the British soldiers – IF GUILTY – I don’t think that six bullies out of 10,000 troops is too shameful. As I said, they were boys behaving badly – IF THE PICTURES WEREN’T FAKED – and should be punished, but they weren’t exactly committing crimes against humanity.
The first rule of defending your favorite socialist government program is to say any wrongdoing is merely isolated incidents.
Troops ‘Swapped Hundreds of Abuse Pictures’
Soldiers say pictures are ‘tip of the iceberg’
Between the military loss at Fallujah (luckily, we didn’t get the ‘sterilization’ that RC Dean wanted) and the moral loss of finding out that our govts did what govts do, you’re running out of excuses for your precious war.
Like I’ve said earlier, we could nuke Baghdad and Perry would be on board. Admitting he was wrong would help the ‘wrong’ people politically in the west. The Iraqis are just along for the ride here. At this point, its just a matter of insisting that American Democrats and the French can’t be right – truth (and the Iraqis) be dammned.
baathist facism and islamofacsim’s useful idiot, scott, is back again parroting his usual drivel. the sick thing is the jerk acts like he actually gives a fuck about the iraqis while he actually wishes saddam was still in charge. he says the us military is brutal, but then fallujah is a military ‘loss’ because the us was not brutal enough to flatten it. what a deluded loser.
OK sark, what would you, who cares so much about human lives, done to Fallujah?
Perry:
The fact some people did some criminal things does not change a thing, provided it is clear those things were not actually policy, which I do not think anyone (rational) is actually claiming. Sure, the war is a government program and we all know that government programs will always be riddled with sundry ghastliness……
You don’t see the contradiction here? Only a die-hard statist would gloss over the idea that whatever ghastliness the state commits in their name is OK as long as they didn’t put it in the Policy Manual. We knew this would happen, as you should have also. “Some people” WILL ALWAYS commit criminal acts and atrocities, and this is even more certain when thay are put into power over another people and given a virtually blank check to use force! You should know this! Apart from the moral question of all the “collateral damage” who died in your noble cause of overthrowing Saddam, any libertarian would instinctively know that sending a state halfway around the world on dubious and shifting grounds and outright lies from the most unreputable sorts to begin with (which were anathema to libertarians) with an unlimited authorization for mayhem and destruction would result in gruesome atrocities like this. What’s interesting about the horror photos from Abu Ghraib is that they pierced the counsciousness of even die-hard war supporters such as yourself in a way that all the thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis to date haven’t, because you can’t even begin to pretend that these photographed people were tortured and killed in some “collateral damage” aside to the otherwise noble and humanitarian “liberation” you all assert is happening.
These photos are right in your face, irrefutable evidence that the enterprise of liberation at gunpoint and humanitarian occupation are a warflogger fantasy. Some things just can’t be done, even by the most powerful army in the world, leaving aside the question of whether these things SHOULD be done. Libertarians are usually the leading voices in pointing this out.
And so tex, the obvious qustion to you is… “and what do you do about the Saddam Hussains of this world?” Nothing, it would seem, as that would disturb the purity of the so-called libertarian fantasy upon which your view of the world is based. You are kidding yourself if you think your views of liberty (for you, I guess, but not some poor Arab schmucks) have any real moral basis.
Sure, collateral damage happens. That is why war sucks. But to paraphrase Churchill, the true immorality in a war against totalitarians is to lose. No wonder so few people who actually care about liberty call themselves libertarians when people like you conflate the word with whining and whistling Dixie while other people in the world live under a fascist and socialist boot. If you cannot see the difference between collateral damage (a tragic consequence of war) with torturing prisoners (a crime), then you are so willfully blind that you will deserve the deaf ears that will greet your worthless words.
Rude Awakening writes: “and what do you do about the Saddam Hussains of this world?”
I am baffled that so many people still do not understand the purpose of the war in Iraq. It’s not, and never was, to get rid of a sleazy and cruel dictator. It was to establish the first democracy the Arab world has known. It is easier to overlay democracy on a secular society than on a theocracy.
After we’ve got Iraq up and running – and it would have been up and running months ago if Powell and the State Department hadn’t got involved – we will move on, possibly to Syria or, my personal favourite, Saudi Arabia. Once people have democracy, they can make their own changes, to their own tastes, from within.
It’s nice that we got rid of Saddam, but we only did it because he was in the way. Not because we thought he was a nasty man.
You don’t understand, tex. We are going to liberate Iraq whether the Iraqis like it or not, and we will kill as many Iraqis as needed to accomplish their liberation. We’re morally justified to do so because we aren’t acting toward the Iraqis as badly as Saddam did, yet.
It increasingly looks like the photos of the British soldiers, at least, were faked (they apparently show the inside of a Bedford truck, which are not deployed in Iraq). Other details, such as uniforms and the lack of a pressle on the SA80 in the picture, indicate that whatever these photos show, they weren’t taken in Iraq. This, of course, raises more questions than it answers.
As for the silly contention that even the repulsive antics that the US troops apparently got up to in any way compare to Saddam’s rule: just grow up. Even if we take the ludicrously high estimate of 15,000 Iraqis killed in the war and its aftermath, we’re still a long way into the credit side of the balance. Saddam was killing tens of thousands of people a year via repression and manipulation of the oil-for-food programme. Let’s not forget that even the guy who thought he was wired up to electrodes actually wasn’t. To put this on the same plane as Saddam’s barbarities is to claim that conducting a mock execution of a prisoner is the same as conducting a real one. I’m not excusing or condoning what went on, but the hyperbolic screeching about this can only be attributed to stupidity, disingenuousness or malice.
I can see the re-election campaign now: Reelect Bush – he’s not nearly as bad as Saddam.
Has there ever really been a very successful case of “bringing” or “giving” a people democracy?…
“As for the silly contention that even the repulsive antics that the US troops apparently got up to in any way compare to Saddam’s rule: just grow up.”
The point is _not_ what we think about the ritual humiliation, but what Iraqis will/do think and I really doubt if assurances that this was done by a few bad apples who have been/will be punished will matter at all to them.
In short, if anyone doesn’t think this makes creating civil society in Iraq at least 10 times harder, then they’re dreaming.
Add to that the “Saddam at least never published pictures of peoples’ humiliation” factor (regardless of who you blame for the pics winding up on the front page – its as much about perception as anything else).
Michael Farris – Great! So unintentionally, through half a dozen little neighbourhood bullies, we’re speaking language the Arabs can understand and respect. Cool!
Actually, I think you’ll find it was rather more to do with restoring a balance of power in the Gulf missing since the collapse of the USSR and preventing unstable potential nuclear powers (by which I mean Iran, not Iraq) controlling a large part of the global oil supply. “Establishing democracy” is no more than a public relations fig leaf for good old fashioned strategic self-interest.
EG
Verity:
I wanted to give you a link to the Taguba report that is described in the New Yorker article, but it doesn’t appear to be publicly available. So we’re stuck with the article. How about giving me a judgement based on content?
Tex:
Yes, this is true. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the US army has systems in place to try to prevent such things happening. And when they do, the army conducts investigations and punishes wrongdoers. Sure, the US army is a state run organisation. But this doesn’t mean that it can’t have the intention to root out and punish wrongdoers. It just means that it is probably not very good at doing so.
And when they do, the army conducts investigations and punishes wrongdoers…
I’m sure all those tortured Iraqis are happy about that.
Now, if you know atrocities like this will happen and you supported the war anyway, what’s your punishment?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
And so tex, the obvious qustion to you is… “and what do you do about the Saddam Hussains of this world?”
Well, Mr. Rude, if you “do” something about every dictator in the world you’re going to be pretty damn busy the rest of your life. So, who gets bombed into freedom next?
Oh, by the way. Why was Saddam first?
Say, anyone seen Osama lately?
Well Tex and Scott, the important thing to learn from this whole scandal is that you are morally superior to us filthy c***suckers who claimed to be in favor of the war on humanitarian grounds, inter alia. Since we’ve found these problems, the whole lot is clearly corrupt rubbish and we need to bring the troops home now. Since the dictator is gone, the lads left behind will be sure to impose a libertarian anarcho-capitalist wonderland, a font of peace and enlightened self interest.
Meanwhile, I’m going to apply the logic you use universally. Since I had a crummy Ford once, I’m not going to drive any more, because the Ford proved all cars are shite. I had a bad ham sandwich last week, therefore I think I’ll stop eating, because clearly any attempts at obtaining healthy, sustaining nourishment are clearly futile. What kind of potentially spoiled food could I run into if I tried to eat again? Likewise, I knew this atheist who was a bastard, so all atheists must be bastards and their mission corrupt. Therefore, I’m going to start going to church… which is going to be tough, since all churches are corrupt because we’ve heard about pederasty scandals…
Oooh, hang on, my head is spinning. Could somebody please point me to the happy neighborhood where Scott & Tex live, where nobody has to do anything unpleasant all day? I’m thinking it must be utopia, because it doesn’t resemble any place I’ve ever been.
I had a crummy Ford once, and will never buy another Ford because of it (and my experiences w/ various Ford service departments). Granted, there’s a subtle distinction there and Al Maviva is an idiot, but what the Hell.
Al, do you regularly go back to places that serve you spoiled food? Are you really as stupid as your sarcasm implies?
Here’s an excellent article from reason magazine by someone who has actually been to Iraq and asked lots of Iraqis how they feel about the war.
Oops, forgot to actually post the link:
http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.sv.faith.shtml
There’s a bit of a “selection bias” in the Reason article (he interviewed English speakers who were willing to spend time w/ a Westerner). The article also predates Fallujah and the torture pics.
In other words, as the Allies firebombed Dresden, therefore it would have been better if Hilter was left in power. Rationality is not the strong point of Scott or Tex
Euan – Actually, I think you’ll find it was rather more to do with restoring a balance of power in the Gulf missing since the collapse of the USSR.
Actually, Euan, I think you’ll find it is to undermine the theocracies and hotbeds of terrorism that thrive in the area. Saudi Arabia in particular.
The theory is that once people have democracy, they are more likely to start thinking for themselves and hold the clinically insane – aka as the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia – in less high regard. Certainly, religion has been found to be an excellent way, throughout mankind’s history, of controlling people, and once free of its iron fetters, people do begin to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own futures.
Iraq would have been well on the way to stability by now if Colin Powell and State had just got out of the way.
Once we have a couple of working democracies in the Middle East, the grasping hand of fanatical Islam will fall away gradually.
Personally, I think Saudi Arabia, the major facilitator of terrorism in the world, should be the next target. I think we should just go in and take the oilfields away from them and ship the 5,000 Saudi princes to Israel to work on construction projects under Isaeli bosses.
I know! I know! It’s a terrible thing to do to the innocent owners of London’s gambling casinos and nightclubs, but we’ve all got to make sacrifices in the war on terrorism.
Verity:
This is certainly a noble aim. But bringing democracy to a country that has never known it is not a task that comes naturally to our military and one that they are not trained for. For this reason – and also for the usual reasons relating to state incompetency (of which the Bush administration has shown many), I fear that the whole exercise will end in total disaster. And the longer this thing drags on, the greater the risk. As I said, noble endeavour, but bloody risky.
Only up to a point, and only as a means to the end of restoring a balance of power, preventing control of the oil supply by lunatics, etc, etc. It’s not important what sort of government they have, but what is important is that the region should be stable from the point of view of the western powers. Realistically, no western politician cares whether they’re democratic, theocratic, autocratic – as long as they don’t threaten to upset the regional balance, cause war, seriously prejudice western interests, etc.
What happens when the Iranian mullahs lose power? What happens when the Saudi monarchy collapses? What happens when the Ba’athists in Syria are overthrown? All sorts of potential problems are there, and it’s not in anyone’s interests to bring them on any quicker than they are inevitably going to happen. You’re going to have long term garrisons in all these places? I think not. It’s less important to “establish democracy” than it is to impose stability.
Out of interest, where else in the world has democracy been “established” by external powers in a coutry with no tradition of it? And how many times without a decades-long military garrison? Thought so…
EG
What Tex and the incorrigible Scott C. do not admit here is that their isolationist views require them to accept that vast tracts of the globe will remain under one type of dictatorship or another. But that’s okay so long as we can construct a big old Galt’s Gulch for our lucky selves and let the rest of the world go hang. Being no doubt good fellows they wish it were otherwise. But my problem with their brand of libertarianism is that it amounts to a form of callous acceptance of the status quo.
That, by the way, is a big problem for libertarianism and its appeal beyond the shores of the true believers.
By Tex’s reckoning, it is morally better to let a military dictatorship go on than do something about it by military force on the basis that all govt. actions of such kind must make matters worse. This seems to be a cast-iron dogma that Tex and his confreres just cannot shake off. (BTW, I used to think the same way but abandoned that mindset some time ago).
A question I put to the isolationists is this: What is so special about national sovereignty as a principle that it trumps personal liberty?
rgds
Jonathan:
The “I’m all right, Jack” type of isolationist libertarianism is a bit of a problem, I agree. But then, the “I’m all right, Jack” attitude seems to underpin a lot of libertarian thought and not just foreign policy.
If the occupation of Iraq is carried out for reasons of strategic interest and the imposition of stability, then that’s ok (from my point of view) and is just well-understood global power politics. On the other hand, if it’s justified on the grounds purely of giving Iraqis their liberty…well, that basically amounts to “I’m going to invade your country just because I don’t like your form of government”. Isn’t that a problem as well?
EG
Euan, fair points. I supported the overthrow of SH primarily on grounds of long-term self-interest, given Saddam’s appalling and reckless past, but regard the liberation of Iraqis from that thug as a big side-benefit too.
Unlike some of the other regular writers here, I don’t think it is the job of Britain and the US to act as the world’s great white knight if this involves bearing huge costs, and especially if it prompts big rises in taxes, regulations, and all the other stuff one gets in wars.
More generally though, I think you will find that most
libertarians take the views they do both with rational self interest (“don’t tread on me”) and consequentialist (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”) points in mind.
Take the War on Drugs, for instance. It is both bad because it violates the rights of individuals to injest whatever substances they wish, and is also bad because it screws up civil society, spawns organised crime, etc.
rgds
A global cop (or, if you like, white knight) is necessary, but it can be expensive. Military expenditure is fundamentally wasteful, so most non-expansionist states tend to try at least to limit it. This is why they tend not go around invading places just because they don’t like the way the other guy runs his country. There needs to be a bigger reason, usually an actual or potential threat to the first country’s interests. I suppose it’s not really libertarian as such, but the end result is pretty much the same.
Oh, and I’ll try very hard not to get started on the “war on drugs”. I have strong views on this, some of which involve suspending people off the end of ropes. I never was much of a libertarian, more of a pragmatic small-state kind of guy 😉
EG
Are you callous enough to let people starve and die of disease (while you remain well fed) because you don’t support the left wing govt programs they claim will ‘solve’ those problems?
Why was Saddam first?
Well, since some mass murderers have obviously gotten away with it in some places, why do we go after mere murderers ? And as long as there are murderers going about, why catch and arrest common thieves at all ? It’s so unfair, isn’t it ?
Sylvain, as a member in good standing of the War Party, will you admit you are morally responsible for whatever happens to the Iraqis after your “liberation” (even after we’re forced out or just leave)? Are you morally responsible if things go bad, or just empowered to do whatever the hell you think is right, consequences be damned?
Euan, I agree with you. We want stability in the Middle East but it is not all about o-i-i-i-i-l. We could go in and take Saudi Arabia’s oil any time we decided to do so, and the glorious “House of Saud” (or, more properly, the Tent of Saud) knows this. We want stability because we do not want terrorist lunatics disrupting our societies.
Jonathan, I definitely do not think we should be standing on every street corner in the world being the cop on the beat. We should further our own interests, and bringing stability to the ME is definitely in our interests. As you say, it’s nice that at the same time we got rid of a thug, but that was a side effect.
Every warmonger seems to have his own excuse for his precious war, and those excuses seem to conflict (“democracy”, “a more pliable dictator”, “stability”, “creative destruction”). The fact that none of the warmongers have any cross words for each other at the same level of venom the sane people get just shows how little the truth of their excuses really matters to any of them.
Verity:
We could, but there would have to be a very good reason to do so, and you’d have to have a reason you could sell to the public. After the political fiasco of Iraq, I don’t see much chance of that. Unless they’re going to threaten to shut off the tap, I can’t see it happening. Also, Saudi forces are rather more credible than Iraq’s, so the body count would be a bit higher. Even then, high oil prices are going to have other effects – such as an increased focus on non-oil energy supplies like nuclear.
Scott:
It’s a sad fact of political reality that sooner or later someone needs to break someone else’s head to stop them doing something or other. In the case of society, this means arresting someone when they just refuse to abide by the rules of that society. In the world between nations, it means war. There comes a point where talking about things just doesn’t solve the problem, and you need to back up your words with force – just as in private society you need to back up your words with ultimately the power of arrest.
People in society tend to toe the line more when they know threats of arrest are not idle, so you don’t actually have to arrest people that often. Governments tend to toe the line when they know threats of war are credible, so you don’t actually need to go to war very often – but sometimes you do, to remind those people who choose to forget. It’s not nice, but that’s reality.
People often forget, or perhaps don’t even realise, the profound effect the British recapture of the Falkland Islands in 1982 had on the Soviet government – they were unpleasantly surprised to find that the west was not the weakened liberal wreckage they thought and hoped it was, and in some measure that war helped to speed the collapse of European Communism, thus delivering a greater degree of freedom to millions. The same could be said, to a lesser extent, of the American invasion of Grenada to remove a Communist government there. Sometimes war is not the worst thing in the world.
And most importantly, if you won’t ever go to war whatever the circumstances, other states will expect (and probably rightly) that you are unable and/or unwilling to defend yourself. Heaven help you if you have something they want…
EG
Euan, I just don’t see the connection between our willingness to invade Iraq and our willingness to fight back if invaded.
verity,
Is what is happening in Iraq called “stability”? As for the rest of the region, you are aware that 5 Westerners were shot dead in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia the other day and one of them, an American, was tied to a car bumper and dragged through town? The Saudis who did this said it was “revenge” for Fallujah and that the mangled corpse was supposed to represent Bush.
Even if for some reason we were to give the Orwellian concept of bombing a region into stability theoretical credence, the facts on the ground are evidence that you’re very wrong.
Scott, you may find this hard to believe, but I certainly do not agree with some of the “war party” over the grounds for war. Yes, I actually dissent from some of them!
And btw, I happen to have a lot of respect for one of the sharpest bloggers around, Jim Henley, who is anti-war, but who, unlike a lot of the “peace” crowd, avoids questioning the good motives of those with whom he disagrees.
As for the callousness point the issue of poverty, the lousy record of third-world aid programmes should surely deal with that issue
But why should ‘we’ fight back if ‘we’ are invaded? If they stay out of my house ‘I’ am not being invaded. After all, for all I know, some invader may well leave me alone and able to do what I do at the moment, so why should I care if you get your ass thrown in jail by the new guys at the top? What does it have to do with me? If I do not fear the new guys more than the old guys, I sure as hell don’t care about what they do to you.
If a potential enemy sees you are willing to go to war in the name of something you believe in, he can be pretty certain you’ll put up a determined defence if he attacks you, because you surely believe in yourselves. On the other hand, if he sees you are NOT prepared to fight for something even though you believe in it, he may conclude you don’t have the stomach for defence either, or at least will not put up as much resistance as you might in the first case. This was exactly what happened with the Soviets in the case of the Falklands and Grenada.
EG
But my problem with their brand of libertarianism is that it amounts to a form of callous acceptance of the status quo…..
You assume you can change the staus quo with bombs and occupation. That is wrong. Just because we oppose dictatorships doesn’t mean we have to condone your statist and violent authoritarian plans for changing things.
Efforts to change the status quo are not admirable in and of themselves and when they involve the deaths of thousands of people and the expenditure of billions of dollars of borrowed money you might think the method of changing the status quo might get a little more examination, especially in light of the spectacular failure of bombing Iraq into freedom. In some instances, like Iraq, the status quo might be the best that can be hoped for and efforts to change it might well make things magnitudes of order worse.
Oh, well, at least you guys made Osama happy by taking out his nemesis Saddam and giving him a new area of operation with thousands of fresh recruits graduating from Abu Ghraib and Fallujah and Najaf, etc, not to mention all those Al Jazeera viewers looking at the pictures of American handiwork like the soccer stadium full of fresh graves and the naked Arab men being laughed at and forced to masturbate by American military bimbos.
Scott, your comment about my not supporting left wing govts that might alleviate poverty was not just wide of the mark but rather ignores that fact that socialist governments, in Asia, and even more so in Africa, have been responsible for major famines, even in places blessed by good farmland and resources.
It goes without saying that the best thing we rich Westerners can do for global poverty is free trade, abolition of farm subsidies, the lot.
“In some instances, like Iraq, the status quo might be the best that can be hoped for,” writes Tex.
Nice.
OK guys, at what point do our torture and gunship attacks on urban areas deny you your moral justifications for your damn war? Will you eventually say we’re justified because Saddam was evil to do it, but its OK for us because its “self defense”?
Contrats, you’ve just become the world’s policeman. Pay for it, fight, and die yourself and leave those of us who don’t volunteer out of it.
So if you won’t fight for an abstraction, you won’t fight in self-defense? Should we invade Libya and North Korea next, or can we let principles go for now?
And American nation-building activities have a wonderful track record? When do you plan to move to Hati? Before anyone brings up post-WWII Germany and Japan, were either country this violent toward their occupiers in 1947?
Tex writes, “In some instances, like Iraq, the status quo might be the best that can be hoped for”.
Ah, finally, I have pinned you down. You think that the “status quo” of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime, with its tortures, mass graves, invasions of neighbours, payments to Palestinian terror groups, obduracy to weapons inspectors, was “the best that can be hoped for”.
Scott, I don’t understand your comments on Japan or Germany (west). What point are you trying to make?
Seriously, flesh out your point.
It was a defanged (at the time of the invasion), secular regime. That may very be the best that comes out of this, except the thug at the top will have a different name. As a war supporter, Johnathan, you are responsible for anyone any new Iraqi thug leader kills. Your war, your responsibility.
Seeing as how Scott just endlessly repeats himself and refuses to accept the responsibility for supporting Saddam, yet wants people who supported Saddam’s overthrow to accept the responsibility for what comes next… and when they say ‘fine’ and point out that even the current dogs breakfast in Iraq is better than what it was before for the people in Iraq, he just acts as it things were better for the Iraqis under his good buddy Saddam without really saying why that is… so I can only urge people: Please do not feed the troll.
Ah, finally, I have pinned you down. You think that the “status quo” of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime, with its tortures, mass graves, invasions of neighbours, payments to Palestinian terror groups, obduracy to weapons inspectors, was “the best that can be hoped for”.
Well, let’s see. As of now, we have over ten thousand iraqis killed by the invaders, a huge torture scandal going on, allegations of rape, at least one mass grave in the Fallujah soccer stadium which is still being added to as Fallujans dig up all the relatives they buried in backyards during the siege, infrastructure all over the country wrecked by 10 years of brutal sanctions and bombings, terror attacks happening all over the world, Al Qaeda growing astronomically, Iraq set to become an Islamic theocracy as soon as they run the Americans out with likely a civil war between Arabs and Kurds coming as soon as the Americans have their Saigon moment.
All that accomplished in a just a year! I must admit that the Americans move faster than Saddam.
Oh, and that invasion thingy? What country is it that the Americans invaded? Oh, wait…..Iraq isn’t our “neighbor” so it doesn’t count.
I didn’t support Saddam (like Reagan and Rummy did). I didn’t support invading to overthrow him, just like you don’t support invading North Korea, etc to overthrow all those dictators. Why is it that warmongers claim for themselves the right to pick one tyrant (arbitrarily if necessary) and say we’re immoral for not making him our business, but its OK to leave the others uninvaded?
The blood of the next Iraqi tyrant is on your hands, Hyksos.
A little gift for those of you claiming we’re better because we don’t let people get away w/ torture like Saddam did:
Civilians ID’d in abuse may face no charges
WASHINGTON — A legal loophole could allow four American civilian contractors allegedly involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners to escape punishment, US military officials and specialists said yesterday.
US commanders in Iraq announced that seven military supervisors have received administrative reprimands over the alleged abuse of the detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of US forces in Iraq, said the investigation into the supervisors — officers and non-commissioned officers — was complete and they would not face further proceedings….
…But the four civilian workers identified in an internal army report for their involvement in the physical and sexual mistreatment of the prisoners — including the alleged rape of one detainee — cannot be punished under military law, and it is unclear whether they will face any charges under either US or Iraqi laws.
The army report — written in February and obtained by a reporter for the New Yorker magazine — found evidence that civilian interrogators employed by the Virginia-based firm CACI and civilian interpreters with the San Diego-based Titan Corp were directly involved in the abuses at the prison. Abu Ghraib is a place once notorious for the torture carried out under the rule of Saddam Hussein but now at the center of an international scandal over apparent human rights abuses at the hands of Americans….
Tex! Omigod! Allegations of rape? In a war? Omigod, omigod! “a huge torture scandal going on” – no, no, no – the torturer – eyelids cut off, balls cut off and sewn into mouths, people shredded alive, etc, their families never informed as to their fate, has been arrested!
Oh Tex, 10,000 Iraqis killed! Over a year! In a war! That is just so scary! Especially as those are your figures!
“al-Qaeda growing astronomically” … have you reported this? I mean, considering al-Qaeda seems to be a big umbrella for anyone who wants to call himself a terrorist these days, rather than an actual unit of anything, let alone shared grudges, don’t you think, if you have evidence, you should let someone know?
Maybe this should have been the west’s defensive tactic during the Cold War, instead of all those awfully expensive submarines, bombers, missiles, etc., that were, after all, funded only through the coercive theft that is taxation. Hmm, I can see it now:
“No, Comrade General, you can’t arrest me, I was a libertarian and therefore did not support state violence against you.”
“How unfortunate, but I am a Communist and believe everyone has an equal right to proletarian suffering. In the truck, capitalist!”
Give me a break.
If you won’t fight for what you believe in, even when your interests are threatened, there is every reason to suppose you won’t put up such a capable defence.
The idea is that if you demonstrate willingness to break heads in nasty country A, then the rulers of nasty country B might think twice about doing whatever nastiness they were thinking of, thus hopefully avoiding it and also avoiding your need to watse life and resources invading him. It’s called deterrence, and is a well known and widely practised military-political doctrine. Oh yes, and it kept the peace in Europe from 1945 to the end of the USSR. And on the Russo-Chinese border from the 1950s to now.
EG
Qaeda recruiting drive draws on Iraq crisis(Link)
Iraq Body Count(Link)
Civilian deaths in “noble” Iraq mission pass 10,000(Link)
Is the Better Than Saddam defense the best you can do?
Tex says al-Quaeda is “growing astronomically”. How does he know that? In any event, one might argue that had we done — as the likes of Tex and Scott would suggest — nothing at all after 9/11 apart from the odd security measure, then al-Quaeda would have taken that as a sign of weakness and recruited even more followers. Look at the history of the 1990s: ever-rising atrocities by these folk coupled by weak and half-hearted responses from the West.
As for the 10,000 dead claim, since I don’t know what your source is, that will have to be put to one side. That the invasion of Iraq has cost innocent civilian lives is something I would not deny, nor insult anyone’s intelligence by denying.
Scott says Saddam was defanged. Really? With 20/20 hindsight, it is true that he was less of a threat to us in the short term (important qualification) than we thought several years ago. But for as long as his regime was around, then Saddam could always wager on the likelihood that the sanctions regime etc would gradually weaken and allow his regime to regather its strength.
By the way, in a rare point of agreement, I think Scott is correct to oppose the invasion of north Korea. That country probably already has nukes, not to mention a vast army. If that regime implodes under economic paralysis, god knows what will happen.
rgds
We picked Iraq because it was weak (the NK tyrants have nukes). Therefore, anyone strong enough (or hard enough to find) to attack us wouldn’t conclude anything about our willingness to defend ourselves. Bullies are cowards – picking fights you know you can win (the invasion, if not the occupation) says nothing about how you handle fights that pick you.
The current war in Iraq has also used up or tied up enough resources to hurt our ability to defend ourselves. Can we occupy Iran, too, if they decide to get frisky? Proving your willingness to defend yourself by becoming less able to defend yourself makes no sense.
Real men only pick fights which will get vast numbers of people killed like in World War One and only sissies like Bush pick on people like poor little Baathist Iraq.
Well, you wouldn’t try to stabilise the middle east by turning the Korean peninsula into a “glass floored self-lighting parking lot” (in the words of a Vietnam era US general), now would you?
Also, if you go to war in Korea, you need to remember that China and even Russia have interests there, and also have lots of nukes of their own. Some of them probably even work.
Except that: you are preapred to fight; you know how to fight; you have effective weapons; you have ample resources; you’re even prepared to fight a pre-emptive war to prevent potential threats becoming actual threats; and you’ll do all of this even if world opinion condemns you, even if large sections of your own population don’t support it. That’s all you need to say, and people do listen very well when you say it.
You pick these so you hopefully never have to fight the difficult ones.
Considering we have not mobilised the economy to a war footing and have not conscripted the population, then yes, if we had to, we could indeed occupy Iran. And you’d better believe the mullahs know it.
Only without raising taxes, mobilising the economy, conscripting, etc. If push comes to shove, we can defend ourselves. Even Britain could in extremis annihilate Iran, and current British military doctrine according to the Defence Secretary does not rule out first use of nuclear weapons.
EG
Pragmatic and rational states only fight when they have to, and frequently to prevent a worse fight. Of course, it doesn’t always work out like that and there any number of wars which should have been limited containment fights but turned out much worse – US in Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, even (although not a war as such) the UK in Northern Ireland, are examples.
EG
For the record, someone is pretending to be me – the “Real men” quote isn’t mine. The War Party has truly run out of arguments when they resort to that.
And if it becomes more likely that we have to resort to that, because of the manpower tied up in Iraq, that’s just peachy? So much for “Saddam used WMD so the war is justified” as an argument.
Lets just invade Canada. If we show the world we’re truly psycho, they will tremble in fear of us. Just ignore the possibility that if we show them we’re truly psycho, we’ll bring on attacks to stop us just like Saddam evidently did.
It can only be a matter of time. After all, we all know Gulf War II was just a rehearsal before taking on the REAL enemy in the North…
EG
Scott, bejeesus, someone pretending to be you? No-one has ever – yet – pretended to be me. You should be proud sir.
There is only one Scott Cattanach. Beware of imitations.
The bogus ‘Scott’ post has been edited to ‘unknown’… but please Scott (the real one), your ‘War Party’ drivel just diminishes the whole weight of your arguments.
I am not even a supporter of the war, but I still find Perry’s post very odd.
Of course prisoners are tortured. The point of taking prisoners is to get information and torture is a good way of getting information. If prisoners are not going to be tortured there is little point in not just shooting them out of hand.
War is not a game. Even television programs such as “Band of Brothers” have shown American troops sometimes shooting prisoners (and so, sometimes, do troops from all other nations). It is just silly to think “oh I want war, but I do not want this” – this is “I want a cat as long as it barks” type thinking.
As for taking pictures of torture. Well the pictures in the “Daily Mirror” look like fakes (most likely a intelligence operation to discredit the Mirror – not that I care about Mr Morgan and his people).
The photos that the Americans took? This was plainly a very silly thing to do. Torturing and killing prisoners is something one must expect in war (and the torture of prisoners was, of course, part of the policy of the intelligence services – it was not just a few mad troops), but taking pictures?
Nasty things have to be done in war – which is why war should be avoided if possible. But (one would hope) that insanely stupid things (such as taking photographs) could be avoided (but perhaps I am expecting too much).
On the matter of Fallujah: I do not understand policy here.
To go in (and get all the negative publicity) and then to pull out (just as the Marines say they were winning) and allow the enemy to claim victory, is very odd indeed.
President Bush was on televison just last week saying he had given the military full authority to go in and crush the enemy in Fallujah – when (even as he said that) he had already ordered a pull out.
This is not a matter of being pro war or anti war – it is a question of a policy that makes sense.
My only guess (and it is no more than that) is that to win in Fallujah (to kill or capture the people involved in the killing of American civilians) would have involved having to admit the truth – i.e. that the local population (or very many of them) are THE ENEMY.
Bomber Harris would have no problems in saying this back in the 1920’s (or later). But modern wars seem to require a higher bullshit content. Harris would have treated Fallujah the way he treated Hamburg, and many people in Iraq would have started to worship the Americans as Gods (intense fear tends to have this effect in the Middle East), but the negative public relations impact in the United States (due to the lack of censorship on American television) seems to have ruled this policy out.
Still a direct ground attack (with far fewer civilian deaths) seems to have been planned for (and, as I said, the Marines insist they were winning) and then the politicians fell apart. The local community were quite happy to kill and mutilate American civilians – so the people of the United States should be prepared to accept some civilians killed in cross fire.
If Mr Bush thinks that the American population can not take pictures on television of a few babies with bullet holes in them (or whatever) then he should never have gone to war in the first place. I repeat, war is not a game.
Taking away the firearms of the Italians? I do not have a clue as to why this was done – perhaps it was a fit of P.C.
Euan, your basic argument seems to boil down to “if we’re willing to fight w/ as little justification as we did in Iraq, then imagine how willing we’ve shown the world we are to fight if actually threatened.” You’re trying to turn the very lack of justification for this war into a justification for it. E for effort – its a game try, but I just don’t buy it.
And you’re just reading into other people’s statements what you want to read. It’s impossible to discuss, let alone refute, that type of response.
Whether you like it or not, this type of international behaviour is how the real world works. As I have said before, it ain’t pretty but it IS reality.
EG
EG, “the way the world works” isn’t that you become safer by looking for wars to fight. Iraq wasn’t a threat to us, and not much of a threat to anyone at the time of the invasion.
It’s by reminding others who would prejudice your safety that you will not permit them to do so. Sometimes, this means war.
You’ve missed the point I have been making. The object is not to neutralise any threat that Iraq posed (negligible at the time), but to make OTHERS realise that if THEY become a threat they will be dealt with. It isn’t a difficult concept, and I don’t see how I can explain it in simpler terms, but maybe it helps to realise that a war against a weak opponent prosecuted as an example to others is a lot less bloody and expensive than waiting until the crap really hits the fan and taking on a much more dangerous and capable enemy.
EG
… except of course that Baathist Iraq was a huge threat to the people Scott intermittently and implausibly claims to care about: the Iraqis.
Euan was justifying the war in terms of our own security – I’m not a monster for responding on those terms.
ABU GHRAIB HYPOCRISY
First let me say that these crimes must be punished. Everyone is shocked and disgusted by this psychological torture and humiliation, which will effect the victims for the rest of their lives.
But the International Community’s reaction is riddled with hypocrisy:
1. Bad treatment for US troops?
It is conventional wisdom among pundits that ill-treatment by a few US troops will result in worse treatment against American POWs. Really?
In the past, US POWS and even civilians have hardly been treated according to the Geneva Conventions. Daniel Pearl beheaded, the Fallujah four mutilated and burned, Jessica Lynch raped come to mind. Tiger cages and torture in Vietnam, forced death marches and executions during WWII. Perhaps the pundits could tell me of a conflict where American POWs were protected?
The threat of bad treatment for POWs might have more effect if it hadn’t already happened.
2. Torture=bad, Torture-Killing=Good?
How did the world respond when 4 civilians were tortured, mutilated, burned, shot, executed, their bodies parts burned, stepped on, dragged and hung from bridges? In much of the press, it was hardly denounced, and actually used as more evidence of either American failure or blame was cast on the non-combatant civilian workers as being “spieds” or “mercenaries”.
Clearly a few humiliating sexual poses would be preferable to mutilation-death-desecration. Apparently rape, torture, mutilation and execution of Americans POWs and even civilians is okay….
3. Demand for apologies
Here’s the game:
-If you only apologize, Iraqis will forgive you
-Bush and others apologize
-Declare these apologies invalid for some reason — they were too indirect, they were personal statements, etc.
-The apology provokes no forgiveness, only shrill denunciations about trying to sneak out of responsibility. A Saudi paper screamed “Killers should apologize!”
4. War=Bad, Terror=Good?
This is a part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy: War is “evil”, terror is good. War by nations against nations is wrong. Civil war and insurgency are “heroic”. Thus, nations which fight wars must be harangued for real and imagined war-crimes, while their insurgent, terrorist counterparts can extermination civilians, rape, torture and mutilate with impunity—after all, they are not governments, so how can they be held responsible.
Thus, the rape of Jessica Lynch and female soldiers in the first Gulf War are laughed off. Thus, executions of American civilians like Daniel Pearl and an elderly wheel-chair bound Achille Lauro passenger is never called a war crime–the terrorists act with impunity. Only wars are protested; Terrorist atrocities and war crimes are laughed off, ignored, or worse, secretly sympathized and justified.
5. Get ready for more hypocrisy
Some Iraqis despite official apologies and even compensation ,and despite experts from the Arab media who claimed that “if only Bush would apologize” the Iraqis will forgive you, radicals in Iraq and elsewhere will no doubt seek to get “Revenge”. When American POWS are tortured and executed what can we expect? Loud, shrill denunciations by the world’s press?? I doubt it. More likely are apologetics, excuse-making, justifications, and even glee. Such is the craven nature of the “World Community”.