Commenter bunkerbuster speculated recently about the possible aftermath of a US troop withdrawal in Iraq:
How many people would die in such a withdrawal? There is indeed a risk that fighting could escalate, though predictions of mass killing of the kind that’s gone on recent years are surely overblown. Why are people who’ve been insisting for six long, brutal, deadly years that we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq now arguing that a withdrawal would occassion a bloodbath. Can’t they see the contradiction?
And, as any child could tell you, there is a big difference between bad things you make happen and bad things you allow to happen. It’s called responsiblity and supporters of this war spend more of their time evading it than anything else.
I’m not sure why bunkerbuster states that those arguing we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq have been insisting on this for six long, brutal, deadly years, since the US action in Iraq began in March of 2003, closer to four and a half years ago. How could we have been insisting actions in Iraq were successful prior to the war?
My guess is that bb is instead choosing to make 9/11 his (I’m using the masculine pronouns for convenience sake) starting point. Why do this, since this was not the beginning of the Iraq war? Perhaps because it was the start of our so-called war on terror, the first action of which was the war in Afghanistan, the beginning of our military campaign in reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
I’ve said before that most liberals and the Left are extremely concerned with keeping their own hands clean. Bunkerbuster demonstrates this here by seeming to be especially concerned with the sins of the US.
Responsibility is a tricky thing, however, a complex hierarchy of intertwined perceptions, predictions, intentions, actions, failures to act, and consequences—including the realm of unintended negative consequences. There is a sort of hierarchy of responsibility in which, generally speaking, (as bb seems to be pointing out) the initiators of an activity bear the highest responsibility for their own actions.
Thus, the US is clearly responsible for directly and intentionally killing many people in Iraq. But who are these people? I think we can safely say the majority of them are what we might call the bad guys. It’s a shame it had to come to the deliberate killing of human beings. But I can’t see how the act of killing Saddam’s henchmen, or terrorists who would intentionally blow up innocent Iraqis in a marketplace, is to be morally condemned, any more than the police killing murderers in a shootout is to be condemned.
But then of course there are the direct but unintended consequences of our actions, those innocents we have killed through collateral damage. We are responsible for those deaths, but bear a reduced responsibility as compared to those who would (and are) killing such people intentionally. And do not forget that the collateral damage we cause usually stems from our efforts to prevent even more terrorist incidences from occurring by killing the terrorists first.
The Left argues that killing terrorists doesn’t work, that it just creates more. This is asserted as almost axiomatic, although there’s no proof for it. Whatever the case, it does seem to be true that, although killing terrorists most definitely puts those particular terrorists out of commission, it does little to stem the tide of new recruits to avenge the martyrs. This is part of the nature of jihadis; since they consider their mission a religious one, ordained by the deity, and that they will be rewarded in paradise, it is extremely difficult to dissuade them either by the fear of death or by any other means. It is probably different for those insurgents who are not jihadi terrorists but who are instead interested in more conventional although internecine political power struggles; they may more be more easily disheartened by the diminishment of their ranks.
Our current efforts against the both the counterinsurgency and the terrorists (there is, of course, some overlap between the two, but I think we can still make a general distinction) are meeting with greater success than the old approach. This is not due simply to greater numbers of our forces in Iraq at present, although that’s part of it. The greater part is that the Iraqi people have become more convinced that cooperation with us, and against both the terrorists and the insurgents, will actually lead to improvement for their country and its people. And the terrorists and the insurgents have inadvertently helped our cause through their own brutality, which seems to have already convinced more and more Iraqis that protecting them is most definitely not in the best interests of the country or its people.
Therefore it appears that the surge has begun to correct some of the errors of our past approach, and is decreasing the killings we should be most concerned with: those of innocent Iraqis and of our military forces. We can take moral responsibility for this improvement, which is in good part a result of the US action known as the surge, combined with the efforts of many Iraqi people in cooperating with us. And this responsibility would stand quite high on the hierarchy of moral responsibility we set up earlier, since it is a consequence of actions that are both direct and intentional.
This brings us to the killings bunkerbuster conveniently ignores, those occurring at the hands of Saddam when he was in power. Clearly, by far the heaviest responsibility for those killings must rest with Saddam himself. But some diminished responsibility must be borne by other countries of the world who actively supported him during the era of his worst excesses, which occurred in the late 80s during the war with Iran and also after the Gulf War failed to take him out. The US supported him during the Iran war; Russia and France supported and even protected him later.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 ended those particular Saddam-based killings, and prevented more from occurring. I’ve dealt previously and at some length with the question of the morality of US support for Saddam during the Iran war, and we are responsible for our choices there to consider him the lesser of two evils. Other countries are responsible their role in supporting him during the 90’s and into the early years of this century, when his nature was well-known.
But it is clearly the US and its allies that can take credit for his being deposed, and there is no doubt that this has kept him from continuing with his usual and customary activities in torturing and killing so many innocent people in Iraq. It’s impossible to say how many people might have been involved, but the number of innocent deaths prevented by his removal almost certainly exceeded the number of innocent deaths attributable to the direct action of the US in this war, including collateral damage.
Ah, but then there are the deaths bunkerbuster is probably referencing and considering to be our responsiblity, those caused by the insurgency and the terrorists in Iraq after our invasion/occupation. Once again, however, the lion’s share of responsibility for those deaths must be borne by the perpetrators themselves. The US does have a certain reduced but still-present responsibility, however, since its act of removing one source of murder in Iraq (Saddam) inadvertently created a set of circumstances that unleashed a different set of murderous forces.
Actually, especially early on, in certain cases the perpetrators were probably the same rather than different ones, since some were almost undoubtedly Saddam henchmen and supporters. In those cases it was not the US-led invasion that unleashed them, it was merely that the invasion did not remove them thoroughly enough. But we’ll leave that aside, because there’s also no doubt that many of the killers were new, either arriving from other countries and taking advantage of the relative anarchy in Iraq (terrorists), or emboldened by leaders such as al Sadr and the jockeying for power that the vacuum of Saddam’s removal caused (insurgents).
What should the US have done about these things? Beaten its breast—and then beaten a hasty retreat? No; whatever responsibility the US bears for these things (and remember, its responsibility in the matter is far less than that of the perpetrators themselves), its new responsibility was to be more effective in combating those murderous forces. This is what Petraeus and the surge have been attempting to do, with no small success.
That is why arguments such as bunkerbuster’s make little sense to me. If we do bear some responsibility for creating this situation or allowing it to happen, would we not then bear an even greater responsibility to do our best to stop it, to remedy it?
It’s wonderful sophistry to maintain, as bunkerbuster does, that predictions of mass killings on our withdrawal are surely overblown. There’s simply no evidence for this type of wishful thinking. But since the Left and many liberals are focused on the US as the cause of all sins, they no doubt believe (or want to believe) that it’s just that simplistic, and that if the US exits, the murderous forces in Iraq will magically be placated, since it’s the US presence that caused them in the first place.
Let’s ignore the fact that liberals and the Left often claim that the situation in Iraq is tantamount to a civil war. Civil wars, of course, don’t go away when occupying armies leave; they have their own internal impetus and drive. And whatever you call the internal fighting in Iraq right now—civil war or no—it is much bigger than a protest against our presence there.
As bunkerbuster himself has said, “there is a big difference between bad things you make happen and bad things you allow to happen.” But many liberals and the Left conveniently ascribe the deaths of innocent Iraqis (and among the US military) caused by actions of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq to bad things the US has made happen, rather than those it has allowed to happen. Surely these deaths should be in the latter category instead, however—and remember that this “allowing” has occurred in this case despite well-meaning but previously ineffective attempts to stop them.
Withdrawal, on the other hand, would consist of our abandonment of a course of action that is proving itself capable of stopping these deaths of innocents at the hands of insurgents and/or terrorists, or at least greatly reducing their numbers. Withdrawal now would therefore be an abdication of our responsibility to stop those deaths in the face of a proven ability to do so. As such, it would be morally reprehensible.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Thus, the US is clearly responsible for directly and intentionally killing many people in Iraq. But who are these people? I think we can safely say the majority of them are what we might call the bad guys.
This cannot be “safely” presumed. I seriously doubt American forces are responsible for most of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died in the war; mostly that has come at the hands of insurgents and al Qaeda and the militias and whatnot. However, it’s impossible to argue that the majority of deaths are “bad guys” when our forces are most certainly responsible for a incredible number of deaths in bombings, roadblock shootings, convoy shootings, raids into homes at night, ground operations such as that carried out in Fallujah, and so on. I don’t presume to know the numbers, but neither should you.
If we do bear some responsibility for creating this situation or allowing it to happen, would we not then bear an even greater responsibility to do our best to stop it, to remedy it?
Believe it or not, I argued that very thing until late last year. At the time, I believe it to be a reasonable argument; that we had not yet discharged our obligations to the Iraqi people for what we have done to their country. I won’t speak for bunkerbuster, but for myself and many other liberals, the problem is we believe that we are not capable of remedying the situation in Iraq, no matter how long we stay. This is what eventually persuaded me into thinking that withdrawal is our only recourse. I do believe things have improved locally in parts of Iraq, and especially Baghdad, but I continue to believe that our forces are only acting as a cap on the violence, and not an antidote to it. The lack of political progress only bolsters this belief on my part. I believe that in the end the Sunnis will do as they wish, as will the Shiites, and in the meantime they only use the presence of our forces to the extent that it is most convenient to them.
If this is true, then what argument can be made for staying? That by keeping our troops there in huge numbers, things will somehow, someday get better? That “strategy” is hardly sufficient reason to keep enduring casualties in Iraq.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
This cannot be “safely” presumed. I seriously doubt American forces are responsible for most of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died in the war;
Hahahahaha! ‘Cuz there aren’t ‘hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, for starters. You just made that bogus number up.
However, it’s impossible to argue that the majority of deaths are “bad guys” when our forces are most certainly responsible for a incredible number of deaths in bombings, roadblock shootings, convoy shootings, raids into homes at night, ground operations such as that carried out in Fallujah, and so on. I don’t presume to know the numbers, but neither should you.
Yeah, an incredible number of deaths of “bad guys”!
It is extraordinarily rare for us to kill innocents. The Rules of Engagement are designed to prevent this and troops simply do not fire at unconfirmed targets.
Are you accusing us of intentionally killing civilians?
You don’t understand anything about how our forces conduct kinetic and political operations over there.
Your comments slander the Soldiers and Marines who died rather than returning fire indiscriminantly at civilians.
You slander the military and your country.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“but I continue to believe that our forces are only acting as a cap on the violence, and not an antidote to it.”
And by withdrawing, therefore, we prevent….what? If US presence is all that’s keeping this supposed “violence,” then what is to be gained by leaving? Won’t this “civil war” continue? It boggles the mind that people like X continue to spout this tripe, that by invading, we “caused” the violence, by staying, we “perpetuate” it, and by leaving, we somehow will “solve” it, when in fact, just the opposite should be obvious to even the most obtuse individual.
But for people like X, it really isn’t about Iraqis at all, it’s about putting America in its place, about reinforcing the idea that we’re bad, we’re evil and imperialistic, and we should just stay home. The millions that were slaughtered after we left Vietnam mean nothing to leftists, as would the Iraqis killed in the supposedly inevitable violence that would follow an American withdrawal.
Never mind that things may be getting better; never mind that there is indeed reconciliation—however minute—taking place; none of this matters to people like X. It’s really all about him/her and how he/she feels about America.
Feh. A plague on “progressives.”
November 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
In weak moments, I worry America is lost b/c we cannot even agree on facts which underlie our national arguments and decisions.
An example is the likely-soon-here-to-rage argument about number of Iraqi casualties inflicted by U.S. troops.
I took time to look at this about 5 or 6 months ago. Left and Dem politicians were bandying about a figure of 300,000 Iraqi civilian casualties at the hands of American/Coalition forces. This figure came from some international organization estimate - and was, to me, ridiculous, I know of the huge, own-life-threatening efforts American forces make to avoid civilian casualties. But, the figure was additionally ridiculous because 300,000 divided by 50 months of war = 6,000 civilian casualties per month. It would seem the only way for American forces to achieve such numbers would be via massive incidences of civilian casualties … yet: where were the mass graves filled with those civilian casualties? Nowhere, of course. The 300,000 estimate was ridiculous pap.
My preferred estimate comes from Iraq Body Count, an organization which IS NOT pro U.S. invasion, yet does seem credible to me. Iraq Body Count tracks all media reports of civilian casualties which are associated with military action. They make an effort to distinguish military actors from innocent civilians. 5 or 6 months ago, Iraq Body Count believed about 25,000 innocent civilians had perished since day one of the invasion in March of 2003.
neo’s post touches on the question of whether the U.S. invasion was/is moral action. Notwithstanding that many heads on the left will explode at the assertion the U.S. might ever to anything moral - especially anything military which is moral… neo’s post is an invitation to a gigantic comment section argument about the costs and benefits of OIF. It would be nice, if this argument breaks out, if all sides could generally agree on a number of collateral casualties which occurred. I believe that, last spring, that number was in the vicinity of 25,000. I generally trust that figure, due to what I perceive as Iraq Body Count’s diligent, ongoing, long-term well-documented efforts to track this data.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
gcotharn:
I distinctly remember reading a story on Michael Yon’s site about a taxi driver in Baghdad who was bemoaning the loss of revenue he had begun to suffer. He was in the practice of hanging out by the morgue, ferrying relatives of dead Iraqis back and forth from home to the morgue. He was decrying the lack of business after the surge—there were far fewer families showing up to identify dead loved ones; he was losing money.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Corrections:
I wrote the above post off the top of my head, then got scared and went to look at Iraq Body Count numbers - after the fact, instead of before the fact.
First, the Lancet study, which is frequently cited by the Left and Dems, alleged 600,000 civilian casualties - not 300,000 - which was the figure I used above.
Second, the current Iraq Body Count estimate of civilian casualties from all causes - both terrorist and Coalition: is from 77,545 to 84,473.
I had trouble discerning IBC’s assertion about how many of those casualties directly resulted from U.S. military action, and I don’t have time to search the site further to try and find this information. I did find, in 2005, IBC asserted 37% of all civilian casualties resulted from U.S. military action (most of those casualties were asserted to be from collateral damage from aerial bombings). 37% of 84, 473 = 30,255.
Third: Iraq Body Count’s methodology includes a survey of what they consider reputable media sources - both Arab and Western, as well as surveys of hospitals and morgues.
I apologize for my mistakes in the above post.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I did find, in 2005, IBC asserted 37% of all civilian casualties resulted from U.S. military action (most of those casualties were asserted to be from collateral damage from aerial bombings).
I suspect their definition of ‘civilian’–it’s a guerilla war ferchrissakes….
How could they know which civilians were shooting at us when they were killed?
No one really knows, but in a case-by-case basis, troops cannot and do not shoot, or direct fire on targets that are even suspected of being occupied by civilians.
It’s one of the reasons this war is so difficult and time consuming….
November 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“The Left argues that killing terrorists doesn’t work, that it just creates more. ”
This is a nonsense statement. The rest of bunkerbusters statement is a moral equivalence arguement, long ago shredded and discredited.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Ambiguous, isn’t it? Welcome to the real world…
November 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The argument that we “create” terrorists is also, at its heart, mind-bogglingly racist.
Somehow Muslims apparently aren’t capable of free will or moral choice. If they pick up a gun or set a bomb, it’s not because they’re individuals with their own goals and motives. No, they’re just puppets. Automata. And thus bear no guilt for the deaths they cause.
Apparently only white Christians are “real people” to someone like Xanth, and thus only white Christians can be responsible for deaths of people in Iraq.
Why not just go ahead and join the Klan, Xanth? I’m sure Robert Byrd would write you a good recommendation.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
But aren’t you aware by now, neo-neo, that nothing bad is recognized by the left unless it can be (however absurdly) blamed on the United States…
Thus, the world trade centre is attack – in retaliation for Palestine!
Buses in London are blown up – in retaliation for Iraq and Afghanistan!
Riots occur after someone publishes some cartoons – it was the neo-cons (ie. `neo-conniving Jews’, American of course)!
November 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The Rules of Engagement are designed to prevent this and troops simply do not fire at unconfirmed targets.
Gray, please try to read more closely…or, at all. The ROE also make it perfectly legitimate to drop a bomb on a house full of people you think are insurgents, but might actually be insurgents, or where insurgents are hiding even if civilians might be in the building. So, even if you adhere to an ROE, you can kill civilians. Also, our troops deliberately dropped a bomb on the house Zarqawi was in, knowing that civilians were in that building and would be killed to. They thought the cost was worth it, and they’re probably right. Still, it wasn’t an accident. Look Gray, I know it’s difficult to keep up with these nuances, but please try. It really undermines your own argument to not even have your own basic facts straight, and honestly it wastes my time to have to educate you.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
And by withdrawing, therefore, we prevent….what?
Um, the death of American soldiers Stumbley. Please try to think your response through completely before you type.
But for people like X, it really isn’t about Iraqis at all, it’s about putting America in its place, about reinforcing the idea that we’re bad, we’re evil and imperialistic, and we should just stay home.
I can play this game too. By desiring that we stay in Iraq, Stumbley wants as many American soldiers to die as possible, wants trillions more to be wasted on war, wants our national security to be irreparably undermined, and wishes terrorists who detest us and our allies to flourish in Pakistan. Stumbley, why don’t you just bust out your Iranian flag and fly it proudly? After all, I can read your mind and know your loyalties lie elsewhere, no matter what you say.
Feh, indeed.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Apparently only white Christians are “real people” to someone like Xanth, and thus only white Christians can be responsible for deaths of people in Iraq.
Why not just go ahead and join the Klan, Xanth? I’m sure Robert Byrd would write you a good recommendation.
I was looking for a good chuckle today. Thanks Tri.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Somehow Muslims apparently aren’t capable of free will or moral choice.
So stupied and racist comment.
If they pick up a gun or set a bomb, it’s not because they’re individuals with their own goals and motives. No, they’re just puppets. Automata. And thus bear no guilt for the deaths they cause.
Oh yah but what you think who tarined and the handelr behid OBL was he “white Christians are “real people” “?
November 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
But aren’t you aware by now, neo-neo, that nothing bad is recognized by the left unless it can be (however absurdly) blamed on the United States…
Yes, you are completely correct. Clearly, it is my secret desire to blame terrorism on America that motivates my wish that we get out of Iraq and turn our guns on the terrorists presently camping out in western Pakistan.
You know, it is possible to have an adult conversation about the merits of staying in/leaving Iraq or intervening in Pakistan or anywhere else…but you have to leave your paranoid and two-dimensional world view behind to do it.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Some years ago, when, by lucky chance, I could get a lefty’s wrist up between his shoulder blades and make him remember the Killing Fields, it was our fault because we “radicalised” the Khmer Rouge, or we “made them do it”, or some such. Those poor brown people had no agency. The malevolent Kissingerian badthink from ten thousand miles away made them do such stuff.
Not their fault. They were helpless
X and others think the bad guys in Iraq were helpless. Had no choice. Watch something on television, such as the all abughraiballthetime, andn decide, “that’s it. No work tomorrow. I’m going to blow up a nursery.”
Couldn’t help themselves.
This is the way the left look at the benighted brown people. Helpless and without self-will.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I guess I wasn’t addressing you in particular, Xantha guy or gal…
It is of course ok to have that “adult conversation” wrt to Iraq and Pakistan.
But is it wrong of me to sense that, at least some of those who are Iraqi war critics, are so gung-ho for invading Pakistan (hello Obama!) simply because its government is allied with the Bush government?
And, further, if the Bush gov decided tomorrow that it was going after the Musharrif regime, that these same critics would be screaming, “What?! Are you trying to start a nuclear war?!”
Anyway, the subject of neo-neo’s post was the blame attribute to the United States by the various critics of the war, in relation to the dispute number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
That is what I was addressing…
thanks
RH
November 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Um, the death of American soldiers Stumbley”
You mean like the horrendous violence in Fallujah?
“Nobody was shot last night in Fallujah. No American has been shot anywhere in Fallujah since the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment rotated into the city two months ago. There have been no rocket or mortar attacks since the summer. Not a single of the 3/5 Marines has even been wounded.”
-Michael Totten, 11/27/07
“Please try to think your response through completely before you type.”
Oh, I do, X, I sure do.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
We were more than happy to help Saddam kill his own people and the Iranians as long as he would cooperate with us and share his oil.
The stain of that little bit of dark history makes the “moral” highground of “finally removing him” seem like a parody.
Like WE one day woke up and said, “those poor Iraqis” need our help. Where they hell were we when we were working back alley deals with the bastard himself? How might it have turned out had he given up the goods?
And, we didn’t go in to save the Iraqis remember? Wasn’t it about WMD?
Smells like hubris to me.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Laura:
“And, we didn’t go in to save the Iraqis remember? Wasn’t it about WMD?”
Weeeelllll, no, actually (from the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” in 2002):
“Whereas in December 1991 (you know, when Bubba was Prez), Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688″;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) (you know, the one that Bubba signed) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
See, it’s those pesky facts that keep coming up and doing you folks in.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 8 (UPI) — A bomb killed two Iraqi police officers and four security guards in Fallujah, Iraq, and an improvised explosive device killed a U.S. soldier south of Baghdad.
and another factbox on violence 11/25
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSANW52752420071125
oh so rosy huh? ps: do a google search to see that totten’s article was picked up by every fox around the country. guess that’s called a “top down” story.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
What were the Americans told”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
sounds like the “imminent threat” speech.
and who can forget this classic:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
November 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Laura: No one denies that WMD were part of the reason for the invasion; it’s just that folks like you keep pumping WMD as the only reason. It’s just not true. And if people like you were too uninterested at the outset to pay attention, well, I’m sorry, but the information was out there.
And I’m not saying that there’s no violence in Iraq or that more American soldiers won’t be casualties, it’s just that in many regions of the country, violence is way down, and people like you just refuse to admit it.
Just because Michael Totten is picked up by Fox, that makes the news untrue? You’d rather get your stories from Jamil Hussein?
Say, how’s your “kid” doing, anyway?
November 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Why don’t you send me a link, where our president did not link the two prior to the war. WMD was THE reason we went to war. Period.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Laura:
Sorry. You are just wrong.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
…and by the way, the president who first “linked the two before the war” was none other than William Jefferson Clinton.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Pity you haven’t realized it.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Laura,
Thanks for providing clarification of the oft misquoted “imminent threat” line. What President Bush said, per your link, was:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
It is clear that Bush was saying we could not wait UNTIL the threat was imminent.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
@ Laura
Saddam assumed power officially in 1979, although he was the power behind the scenes for some time before that. From 1979-1990, US arms sales to Iraq represented 0.6% of Iraq’s arms purchases; the USSR 60.6%, China 14.8%, and France, 14.5%. That doesn’t sound as if we gave a lot of assistance to Saddam. It is an interesting coincidence that Russia and France, the first and third biggest sellers of arms to Saddam, were also the most opposed to our deposing Saddam, and that you appear to have been similarly opposed. Just wondering. From 1967 to 1984, the US didn’t even have diplomatic relations with Iraq.
Please get acquainted with the facts.
Our arms sales to Iraq - mostly helicopters- were related to the Iran-Iraq War, which was done for realpolitik’s sake. Recall the remark attributed to Henry Kissinger about the Iran-Iraq War: “I hope they both lose,” which is similar to what Truman said with regard to Hitler’s invading the USSR in 1941. Do you think that we also made a mistake in making anther pact with the devil, when we assisted Stalin in our common fight against Hitler? Do you believe that because we started diplomatic relations with Stalin in 1933, and also gave him substantial military assistance in WW2, that we share responsibility for the genocides of Communism?( see your remark about “we were more than happy to help Saddam kill his own people,” )
It is difficult to tell what time frame you are using. What about Gulf War I? Do you think we made a mistake in not going all the way to Baghdad back in 1991? What “back alley deals” were we working? And when? Just wondering. It was the French and Russians, with decades of economic and military ties with the Ba’athist Iraq, who wanted sanctions lifted, who were working those back alley deals. Do you recall the photo of Chirac and Saddam at the nuclear power plant, which shows the long-standing ties between France and Ba’athist Iraq?
Again, it is difficult to tell what time frame you are using. Since you are talking about WMDs, I will make the assumption you are discussing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was about a lot more than just WMDs. Have you ever read the Iraq War Resolution of October 2002? Among other things, it says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with neoneo’s idea that there is a hierarchy of moral responsibility. The ludicrously simplistic “moral superiority” notions of chauvanists have no place in reasoned discussion.
The hierarchy she sets out, however, is woefully incomplete.
The most glaring omission is that of police authority. The capstone of civilization is the recognition that the state alone has police authority, that is the right to undertake violence on behalf of the community. This is how and why we distinguish between terrorists and police, so we can’t leave it out of our moral hierarchy, as neoneo has.
The U.S. has no police agency in Iraq. Even the chauvanists have now at long last surrendered on the argument that it was necessary to invade to remove Saddam’s WMD. Even they have shifted to the rationale that the U.S. is acting on behalf of Iraq’s citizens, not America’s.
But the U.S. unilaterally rejected the only available processes for establishing police authority to act on behalf of Iraqis. The U.S. was never invited by any representative leadership in Iraq and the U.N. never condoned the U.S. invasion. Both of these methods of establishing police authority are incomplete and, even, flawed, but they are the available means for doing so. The U.S. chose to do neither.
Instead, the U.S. chose to act as a vigilante in Iraq. Again, this doesn’t make all their actions ipso facto immoral, but it does place them significantly lower in the moral hierarchy.
Neoneo draws the analogy between police killing murderers in a shootout and the the U.S. killing Saddam’s “henchmen” in Iraq. But the U.S. is acting as a foreign vigilante, not a police force. The henchmen, then, were lynched by foreigners in the scenario neoneo describes, not killed by police in a shootout. Moreover, the lynching took place in a circumstance in which the foreign lynchers were simultaneously engaging in massive destruction of infrastructure, killing innocent civilians, torture, collective punishment and aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing, whether accidental or otherwise.
Neoneo writes:
“Thus, the US is clearly responsible for directly and intentionally killing many people in Iraq. But who are these people? I think we can safely say the majority of them are what we might call the bad guys.”
If vigilantes shoot a guilty murderer, their act can be seen as moral, even if it is anti-social. But what if when shooting the guilty murderer, a stray bullet kills a child? That either reverses or severely diminishes the morality of their act. Now, what if killing that murderer entailed a running gun battle through the city that destroyed much of the city’s infrastructure and left dozens of bystanders dead and scores injured. I think we can safely say the vigilantes are, on balance, bad moral actors and the situation in Iraq is far more akin to the latter than the former.
Neoneo writes:
“The collateral damage we cause usually stems from our efforts to prevent even more terrorist incidences from occurring by killing the terrorists first.”
Saddam can and did make the same argument with equally preposterous justification: His government was under seige. Shiite and Kurd terrorists, along with Iran, threatened its survival. The attempt to destroy the terrorists left innocents dead.
Such an argument is ludicrous, of course, not because terrorists, assassins and spies weren’t otu to bring down his government, but because Saddam had so severely compromised his legitimacy as the ruler or Iraq, he lacked the level of police authority that alone can justify “collateral” damage.
The argument is equally ludicrous when used to justify U.S. killing of innocents by exactly the same standard: The U.S. has no legitimate claim to police authority in Iraq, and, in fact, hasn’t even sought one.
Let’s consider another analogy: a band of vigilantes comes into town searching for a murder suspect. During the search, they lock up your son in a prison where he is then tortured, humiliate your daughter and accidentally kill your uncle.
You then decide to become a vigilante yourself and proceed to kill the vigilantes.
Where do you rest on the moral heirarchy? Every Iraqi would have the right to be in that position, regardless of their ethnic, religious or political affiliation.
Which brings us to neoneo’s claim that:
“the killings bunkerbuster conveniently ignores, those occurring at the hands of Saddam when he was in power.”
As I have shown again above, I have not ignored those killings and neither are they inconvenient. Rather Saddam’s killings and his justifications for them and his moral agency, or lack thereof, are highly convenient to my arguments. I have referred to them repeatedly, so neoneo’s claim that I’ve ignored them is plainly false.
Neoneo writes:
“some diminished responsibility must be borne by other countries of the world who actively supported [Saddam] during the era of his worst excesses, which occurred in the late 80s during the war with Iran and also after the Gulf War failed to take him out.”
Part of bearing that responsibility is acknowledging that it diminshes or even eliminates any potential police authority the U.S. may seek to exercise in Iraq. The U.S. is a vigilante with bloody hands, and not just from the innocents accidentally killed, but with the blood of those deliberately killed by the tyrant himself.
After admitting that the U.S. shares responsibility for Saddam’s worst atrocities, neoneo claims:
“It’s impossible to say how many people might have been involved, but the number of innocent deaths prevented by his removal almost certainly exceeded the number of innocent deaths attributable to the direct action of the US in this war, including collateral damage.”
This makes no sense. Neoneo says it’s “impossible” to say, but then goes on to, well, say it.
So we have a vigilante who admits that it’s impossible to say whether their actions actually saved innocent life. But they then go on to assert that it MAY have.
Such highly speculative hypotheticals have no place in assessing moral hierarchies. As we noted, the very basis of civilization is the exclusivity of state violence. If vigilantes are free to kill on the basis of speculative hypotheticals that they themselves describe as “impossible” to gauge, all is lost.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Xan:
“I won’t speak for bunkerbuster, but for myself and many other liberals, the problem is we believe that we are not capable of remedying the situation in Iraq, no matter how long we stay…”
An honest, reasonable argument. I disagree with it though.
“I continue to believe that our forces are only acting as a cap on the violence, and not an antidote to it. The lack of political progress only bolsters this belief on my part….by keeping our troops there in huge numbers, things will somehow, someday get better? That “strategy” is hardly sufficient reason to keep enduring casualties in Iraq.”
No, things “getting better” in Iraq is of strategic importance, not only to the United States, but to other western liberal democracies as well. The world needs a sane, stable government in the heart
of a region beset by brutal dictators and homicidal clerics. Islam needs to undergo the “Reformation” Christianity had went thru in the Middle Ages, not to mention the importance of denying Iran with the reward of a virtual puppet province they would end up with once they disposed of the democratically elected Iraqi political leadership. So yes, we have sufficient reason to stick it out. And since it appears you on the left do not have a greater moral argument for withdrawal, Im not certain why what motivates your position on the matter, isnt exactly what we’ve been saying it is.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
BUNK
“Neoneo draws the analogy between police killing murderers in a shootout and the the U.S. killing Saddam’s “henchmen” in Iraq. But the U.S. is acting as a foreign vigilante, not a police force.”
Yeah, we did that to Germany and Japan as well. We’re just scoff-laws like that from time-to-time.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Gray, please try to read more closely…or, at all. The ROE also make it perfectly legitimate to drop a bomb on a house full of people you think are insurgents, but might actually be insurgents, or where insurgents are hiding even if civilians might be in the building.
Not really…. It’s not really that simple. There is a ‘vetting’ process.
You really don’t know what you are talking about, but it is colored by your dislike of your country, your military and the Commander in Chief
So, even if you adhere to an ROE, you can kill civilians.
That is unfortunately, true. But unlike the atrocity-happy kilbots you suggest, killing civilians is avoided, planned against and never intentional.
Heck, we drop leaflets in advance so that civilians could be warned and get out of the area.
Also, our troops deliberately dropped a bomb on the house Zarqawi was in, knowing that civilians were in that building and would be killed to.
You don’t know that. You have no idea what happened….
Look Gray, I know it’s difficult to keep up with these nuances, but please try. It really undermines your own argument to not even have your own basic facts straight, and honestly it wastes my time to have to educate you.
“Nuances”…. Heh.
Ooooohhhh…. I’m getting schooled in ‘basic facts of legal land warfare’ and ‘Rules of Engagement’ by a military-hatin lefty with zero background or knowledge in these things….
How many years do you have in uniform, Xan? I’ve got 16 in an Army uniform, officer and enlisted. Guess you told me….
November 28th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
The capstone of civilization is the recognition that the state alone has police authority, that is the right to undertake violence on behalf of the community.
Wow, the dirty, dirty left does love a police state. No wonder they love a strongman like Saddam:
Police Authority has no “rights”. Only citizens have rights…..
One of those rights is to own guns as a balance police authority.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
X: … when our forces are most certainly responsible for a incredible number of deaths … etc., etc.
The operative word in all that being “incredible” — meaning “not believable”. That’s not important, though — as a good self-styled “liberal”, even bunker’s “tiny handful” of Iraqi deaths would be deemed “incredible” in the sense of “really big” by X. And, of course, as a good “liberal”, X would hardly be able to recognize the concept of “bad guy” anyway, except when applied to Bush, neocons, conservatives, or Americans generally.
A few simple points, notwithstanding all the phony or obtuse liberal handwringing :
The first is that, as in all wars, innocents do get killed, yes.
The second is that American troops generally do their best to keep such deaths to a minimum, while doing what they need to do to kill or defeat the real bad guys.
The third is that there are real bad guys (as opposed to non-”liberals”) in Iraq and elsewhere, whom it is extremely important to kill or otherwise neutralize, which is why our troops are there in the first place.
The last point, particularly, is what we need to keep in mind when we talk about current options. It’s not simply that withdrawal at this point would likely result in large numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq, as bad as that is. It’s that it would also, at this point, leave a power vacuum into which would flood islamist butchers once again, with every intention of setting up another state-supported, oil-funded terrorist hatching ground. Both prospects, of course, leave those poor, compassionate “liberals” doing nothing more than sighing, tilting their heads, and giving little “what-can-you-do?” shrugs. For the rest of us, however, both prospects should be cause for strengthened resolution.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I wonder if Saddam could have used another lawyer in his defense. Bunk could have stepped up and argued that the Iraqi authorities had no authority to pronounce judgement on Hussien as he was illegally apprehended by a vigilante US government acting without the authority or approval of the same one-world government body, which routinely fails to enforce its own “resolutions”.
The defendant must be released at once and given his old job back.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Sally writes: withdrawal “would also, at this point, leave a power vacuum into which would flood islamist butchers once again, with every intention of setting up another state-supported, oil-funded terrorist hatching ground.”
That’s your speculation. Withdrawal could also clear the way for secular Iraqi tribalists to defeat the fringe Al Qaeda elements empowered and enabled by the U.S. occupation.
Why are you assuming withdrawal equals a power vaccuum?
Isn’t it safer to assume that a withdrawal would be accompanied by a diplomatic arrangement that could include U.N. enforcement and/or regional military participation?
There are many options here and, while none of them, including continued occupation, are without risks and sacrifice, they remain options nonetheless.
To pretend that the only option to occupation is leaving willy nilly, leaving a “power vaccuum” and so on in Iraq just isn’t credible.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Jaw droppingly stunning:
“To pretend that the only option to occupation is leaving willy nilly, leaving a “power vaccuum” and so on in Iraq just isn’t credible…Isn’t it safer to assume that a withdrawal would be accompanied by a diplomatic arrangement that could include U.N. enforcement and/or regional military participation?”
Safer for who? Safer for you? Absolutely. Why dont you just be honest and say you just dont give a rats ass? You couldnt be that out of touch with the real world to think the UN is going to come back into Iraq and cover our withdrawl. The lack of intellectual honesty, and out-right laziness on your part for suggesting this as an actual option leaves a rational person with no other conclusion about you that you really dont give a rats ass. Why do you fight this so? It clearly doesnt have a thing to do with you.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
That’s your speculation. Withdrawal could also clear the way for secular Iraqi tribalists to defeat the fringe Al Qaeda elements empowered and enabled by the U.S. occupation.
WAHAHAHAHA!
Or maybe it will end up an Islamic Paradise on Earth like Afghanistan.
Remember the big beef that we helped the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets and then we just left Afghanistan?
Remember the left charge that “we abandoned Afghanistan”?
No, of course you don’t, those things went down the Memory Hole of the Left.
So you want us to abandon Iraq like we abandoned Afghanistan and you think it will be just peachy….
How many pre-Islamic ruins and artifacts are there for the Taliban to destroy in Uruk, Sumer and all of Mesopotamia? A great many….
Hey, the Tigris ran blue with ink the first time the Muslimeen sacked Baghdad, why not again?
You’ve lost all credibility with this and it is clear that you see the United States as the focus of evil on the earth.
I guess the fact that I don’t hate my country makes me another ‘chauvInist. (It’s spelled with two i’s, how can he get that wrong every time?)
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
boogah!boogah!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Bunk: That’s your speculation.
Ah, “speculation“. Hey, for all bunker knows, American withdrawal might pave the way for an international force of UN “peacekeepers” to be welcomed by all sides and usher in a new Age of Aquarius! Or: “Withdrawal could also clear the way for secular Iraqi tribalists to defeat the fringe Al Qaeda elements empowered and enabled by the U.S. occupation.” (Oh, so the surge is actually empowering Al Qaeda! I don’t think even the MSM has thought of that spin yet.) Or, you know, maybe aliens will come down and enforce peace in out time.
Say! Why don’t you all just gather together in a circle, and maybe hold hands, and you could hum along to Kumbaya for those who don’t know the words, and you could just hope and really, really believe that it will all turn out just fine. Now that’s a plan you liberals could really get behind!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
If the UN were willing to cover our butts in a with drawl, maybe they could say….stick around with us and perform security with us until a political solution has been reached. How come that could be an option? Just exactly where is the intrepid ultimate world authority anyway?
In Darfur, raping children.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“I’m not getting too worked up over the supposed success of the surge. I talked to dozens of US officers over there last week, not one would say we were winning, some said at least we weren’t losing. To a one they all expressed extreme frustration w/ the footdragging of the Malaki govt.
“The violence is down for a number of reasons, not just the impact of the surge, which is in Baghdad. But that’s like saying we’ve gone from the 8th circle of hell to the fifth. It’s still a very dangerous place. As far as the strategic goal of the surge, the political solution, there has not been any progress.
“People who talk constantly in terms of winning & losing fundamentally don’t get it–it’s so much more complicated. All signs are that we are in Iraq for a long time, it will be difficult.”
Tom Ricks, Wash Post
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
““People who talk constantly in terms of winning & losing fundamentally don’t get it–it’s so much more complicated. All signs are that we are in Iraq for a long time, it will be difficult.”
Difficult? Long-term? Yes. We’ve said as much. I dont see where either Tom Ricks or the dozens of US officers advocate withdrawal. You forgot to include that.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I think we both agree w/ Ricks, Harry. He’s a brutally objective reporter and has been spot on in his reports for nearly 5 years now. As long as the current policy is in place, and the longer it’s followed, the tougher it’s going to be to withdraw, which really begs the question.
Bush & Cheney have no plans whatsoever to withdraw, and never did. The plan all along was to establish a powerful military presence in Iraq, before 9/11. Ricks (I was quoting him from a radio interview I heard yesterday) swaid that he’s heard about troop withdrawals for years, and it never happens. He’s not holding his breath that there will be one, in fact he thinks Bush will try to add more troops to lock the next President in to his existing policy.
Ricks reported some interesting factors about the drop in violence. He says the surge initiated the phenomena, but it would be delusional to say that US forces were largely responsible for this–once the surge took hold the Sunnis simply stood down on their attacks on Americans, turned on the scruffy al Qaeda among them, and either murdered them or turned them in. The Shia aren’t stupid, they saw the Sunnis deciding to sit the surge out & drew back, too–why fight the Americans all by themselves while the Sunnis sit? This gave the Shia death squads the chance to go after the foreign al Qaeda in Baghdad, and kill them off–the problem, according to the US Command, they killed hundreds of innocents, too. Ricks also pointed out that Baghdad’s neighborhoods have been completely walled off from each other, with numerous checkpoints–you would be a fool to think you can now just go anywhere. Also, many of the neighborhoods have been violently ethnically cleansed over the past 3 years resulting in thousands of deaths, most (sorry, neo, you’re way off here) of them civilians trying to get out of the way of the sectarian violence.
Ricks concluded by saying the next big test is the upcoming provincial elections, the first attempt to truly spread democratic govt. throughout the country. Many in the US command, according to Ricks, are bracing for what may be a new outbreak of Sunni-Shia violence w/ these elections, which has always been the biggest problem. “There is no sign of functioning democratic govt. and policing outside the green zone,” said Ricks. “It’s just not there yet.” The fear is that the intensity of the upcoming provincial elections could easily spark violence throughout the country, putting US forces up against it again. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
The plan all along was to establish a powerful military presence in Iraq, before 9/11.
Where do you get that from?
It’s true we couldn’t enforce the sanctions and No-Fly-Zones in perpetuity, but we already had ‘a powerful military presence in Kuwait and SA to enforce the No-Fly-Zones.
You made that up.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Gray asserts: “So you want us to abandon Iraq like we abandoned Afghanistan and you think it will be just peachy….”
The conventional wisdom is that we, or our side, “won” the war in Afghanistan. But you are correct, Gray: the reality is more complicated and history shows that our actions in Afghanistan came back to haunt us, with a vengeance, on 9/11.
Without U.S. interference, there’s a very good chance the Soviets would have killed bin Laden and wiped out his forces. No 9/11.
This is not to suggest the U.S. is responsible for bin Laden’s actions, but to demonstrate that “winning” wars like the one in Afghanistan may actually harm national security.
Gray is also correct to point out the similarities between the Soviets war against jihadists in Afghanistan and ours against the amalgam of anti-occupation Iraqis. Even if we “win” the war there–presumably that means quelling the ongoing violence sufficiently to allow an orderly withdrawal–there remains a chance that the government of Iraq will continue to act against U.S. interests and, eventually, find itself as an enemy of the U.S.
For example, there was much rhetorical confusion in the medicre media when the Prime Minister of Iraq refused to toe the U.S. line on Israel. Apparently, the media consensus is that we have a right to expect the government of Iraq to back the U.S.’s unconditional support for Israel. That’s beyond naive.
People who argue the war in Iraq can be won in any meaningful sense of that word don’t seem to be aware that the Shiite militia and government death squads the U.S. is currently allied with aren’t likely to be pro-U.S. once America stops paying their bills and providing military cover for their ethnic cleansing and fiefdom building.
They, as Gray suggests, can be expected to behave much as the militias in Afghanistan did after the U.S. left. Once the U.S. stopped funneling money and weapons to them, they immediately turned on us and, eventually, hosted the forces of 9/11.
Regardless of whether the U.S. withdraws from Iraq before or after declaring victory (Mission Accomplished?), the Iraqi people are not likely to drop their objections to U.S. support for either Israel or the Saudi or Kuwaiti monarchies.
For all their talk about positive thinking, pro-war bloggers never actually take the step of imagining Iraq as a functioning democracy. Miracles do happen and should that particular one unfold, Iraq would immediately find itself in direct conflict with close long-standing allies Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Presumably, as a democracy, it would also have the superior moral standing would allow it–in the chauvanist view–to justify invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, on behalf of it’s peoples’ democratic aspirations of course.
At the very least, a democratic Iraq would be more, not less, in conflict with the Saudis, Kuwait, Jordan and Israel, America’s strongest and longest-lived allies in the region.
This can only be avoided by bringing in the participation of Iraq’s neighbors and one framework for such a solution is the U.N.–though by no means the only one.
The consequences of a U.S. “victory” in Iraq may well be unintended, but they needn’t be unprepared for.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Yeah Jim. You were coming off pretty reasonable at the end there. When you say “The plan all along was to establish a powerful military presence in Iraq, before 9/11., my eyes start to roll though. Again, because I must’ve missed it, I dont see Ricks or the US officers he cited as advocating a withdrawal. Just that its going to be a long and difficult slog involving some of the duplicity you mentioned. (and maybe, a little over embellished, as with the assertion Iraqi occupation was Bush/Cheney plan all along). Im not seeing a better alternative being presented. You at least sound as though you may be level headed enough not to believe the violence would simply go away on its own once we leave, or that there wont be something horrid that fills the hole we leave behind.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am
There is a ‘vetting’ process.
Yes, and that vetting process results in bombs being dropped on houses of civilians. So please explain to me how your “vetting process” undermines my point.
You don’t know that. You have no idea what happened….
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/tracking-zarqawi. It helps to get your news from something besides Fox and TownHall.com.
How many years do you have in uniform, Xan? I’ve got 16 in an Army uniform, officer and enlisted. Guess you told me….
Well, none actually, which is why it surprises me that you have such difficulty understanding my basic points. I do appreciate your service to the country, but that hardly changes the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 am
It’s that it would also, at this point, leave a power vacuum into which would flood islamist butchers once again, with every intention of setting up another state-supported, oil-funded terrorist hatching ground.
You overstate this threat. The Sunnis have proved more than capable of dealing with al Qaeda, moreso than we were even. And regardless, Sunni terrorists could not hope to topple the Shiite-dominated national government. Our greatest threat is that Iraq will emerge a firm ally of Iran, something that is happening even as we occupy the country with 175,000+ troops.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Or maybe it will end up an Islamic Paradise on Earth like Afghanistan.
If so, it’ll be a Shiite one. See my above comment.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Oh, I do, X, I sure do.
Well, no you don’t. For one thing, I didn’t mention Fallujah, which is a locked down city right now. Second, according to this website:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
34 American soldiers have died in Iraq this month. I am arguing that it’s not worth it, but then I don’t think the deaths of 34 American soldiers is insignificant, as some on this blog appear to.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:43 am
It’s worth repeating the delicious irony that neoneo started this blog with the feeling that she was being mistreated by liberals who disagreed with her support for Bush and the war.
Alas, her blog has become a vibrant testament instead to the ugly, infantile personal attacks so many conservatives unleash when their claims are challenged by liberals.
Here is a small sample from this thread alone:
Gray: “You slander the military and your country.’’
Stumbley: “Feh. A plague on “progressives.”
Trimegistus: “Why not just go ahead and join the Klan, Xanth? I’m sure Robert Byrd would write you a good recommendation.’’
Roundhead: “nothing bad is recognized by the left unless it can be (however absurdly) blamed on the United States…’’
Richard Aubrey: “This is the way the left look at the benighted brown people. Helpless and without self-will.’’
Stumbley: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Pity you haven’t realized it.’’
Gray: “Wow, the dirty, dirty left does love a police state. No wonder they love a strongman like Saddam.’’
Sally: “As a good “liberal”, X would hardly be able to recognize the concept of “bad guy” anyway, except when applied to Bush, neocons, conservatives, or Americans generally.’’
Harry9000: “Why don’t you just be honest and say you just don’t give a rats ass?’’
Gray: “I guess the fact that I don’t hate my country makes me another ‘chauvanist.’’’
Sally: “Say! Why don’t you all just gather together in a circle, and maybe hold hands, and you could hum along to Kumbaya for those who don’t know the words, and you could just hope and really, really believe that it will all turn out just fine. Now that’s a plan you liberals could really get behind!’’
Clearly, emphatically, this blog demonstrates the conservative proclivity for personal insult as a mode of political discourse. What drives them to such fevered desperation?
I have a couple of theories, but I’ll get into them at another time.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Weeeelllll, no, actually (from the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” in 2002):
Stumbley, cherry picking got us into this war, and your cherry picking is no decent defense of it. See, if you read the entire document, you’ll come across this gem:
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
So, the term WMD is specifically used in the resolution, which makes it difficult to argue that we didn’t go to war over WMDS. If you’re intellectually honest that is.
Oh, and one more thing, from this Bush speech in 2002:
http://www.narsil.org/war_on_iraq/bush_october_7_2002.html
Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?
There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing — in fact they would be eager — to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
So, not only was WMD specifically mentioned in the Iraq Resolution, it was also mentioned repeatedly in Bush administration speeches, of which the above is only one example.
In other words, yes we most certainly did go to war over WMDs. This is by the way a fact that a vast majority of Americans have accepted. Only on blogs like this one do we have to “prove” it over and over again.
Facts, indeed.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Among the eye poppers:
BUNK:
“This can only be avoided by bringing in the participation of Iraq’s neighbors and one framework for such a solution is the U.N.–though by no means the only one.”
The participation of Iraq’s neighbors? Iran or Syria perhaps? Hell Bunk, we can just withdrawal and hand the Iraqi’s over to either or both.
“The consequences of a U.S. “victory” in Iraq may well be unintended, but they needn’t be unprepared for.”
Uh huh. So, even if we win, we loose. Soviets and Afghanistan…and OBL,… and we lost anyway…
Lets go back even further. If we had not won a so-called “victory” at Lexington or Yorktown the United States would not now have foolishly found its way promoting democracy in Iraq, which must be a bad thing because they probably would be opposed to our relations with Israel. As if no matter what, that probably wouldnt have turned out to be the case anyway. If we hadnt left the damned Nazi’s alone they could have devoted the bulk of their military towards defeating the Soviets, thus keeping them out of Afghanistan altogether. So that was another so-called “victory” we could have done without.
I tell you what. Instead of cutting & running from Iraq, why dont we disband the military right where it sits. I mean the UN is on the verge of stepping up to the plate anyway isnt it? And we certainly dont want to risk having anymore so-called victories.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Wow.
It just never occured to me to think that the Ultimate Moral Authority rests in a police state as invested by the U.N. (or apparently ‘the leadership in Iraq, Hussein)
I’m blown away. Seriously.
“The capstone of civilization is the recognition that the state alone has police authority” ?????
The capstone??? Really??? And the authority comes from above? Seriously?
Do you guys think that was just a lot of bluster to through the scent off and avoid addressing the points Neo made, or can he really mean this stuff?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:55 am
“Hell Bunk, we can just withdrawal and hand the Iraqi’s over to either or both.”
I believe that’s what’s he’s advocating, Harry
November 29th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Tap:
“I believe that’s what’s he’s advocating, Harry”
I wouldnt put it past him.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Afterall, our soldiers, otherwise known as vigilantes, have been lynching Saddam’s, um, you know, so called “henchmen” (you have to put that part in scare quotes).
November 29th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I’m still trying to come to grips with why a democratically run Iraq opposing US relations with Israel is significantly worse off than an Iraq ruled by a religious thugocracy. Wouldnt we at least have a better dialogue with leaders that are less driven by an irrational agenda? What kind of excuse is that to oppose our efforts? Man, we should have left it to the UN like the “progressive” say. You know they would have acted swiftly and done the right thing.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:06 am
You’re durn tootin’ they would! But we could still leave now. No doubt the U.N. would come bustin’ in a do a whopper of a job, kinda like they’re doing in Lebanon right now!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Ahem. I mean Yer.
Yer dern tootin’ they would. wood, I mean. Awww, heck.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Gray, the neocons (Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Frum, et al) have advocated an Iraqi invasion & elevated military presence in the ME since 1992 and acted upon those beliefs once part of the Bush adm. Paul O’Neill in his book, stated he was stunned that the major subject of the first Bush cabinet meeting was invading Iraq, led by Rummy & Cheney–this was January, 2001, pre 9/11. Bob Woodward and Bob Novak have both reported, along w/ others, that when Clinton met w/ Bush & Cheney he told them that Saddam was contained, but he was worried about the growing threat of al-Qaeda. O’Neill describes how Rummy, Cheney & Bush mocked Clinton’s contention that terrorism should be their main concern, they all saw Saddam as the target and were pushing an invasion as part of an overall plan to dominate the area. Nothing made up here, fairly well-documented by writers from the left or right for years now.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Bunkerbuster,
Following your excellent posts, I think that your job is done here. Any additional effort would be wasted.
That last post you made clearly demonstrates the complete and total failure of the “neocon ideology” which can mostly be summed up as “We’re scared! Let’s bomb and torture the rest of the world, spy on ourselves and tell everyone how smart we are.”
The neocon ideology always, ALWAYS seems to draw the wrong lessons from history. Its advocates cherry-pick facts to do anything to keep from admitting that the facts on the ground in just about any situation refute their two-dimensional world view. For them its just a bunch of “Dirty liberals” who insist on keeping their “hands clean by not killing people and who hate America.” For them it is impossible for us to be liberals but not be pacifists.
That’s way easier for them to believe than to genuinely understand the fact that many liberals simply believe that there is one rule of law–not one for Americans and another for the rest of the world. Nobody gets a free pass. Yet we can only be responsible for our own actions. And we shouldn’t use the behavior of others, no matter how bad, to justify our own.
I personally believe the neocons represent a bizarre strain of autocratic (and morally vacant) ideology that attempts to masquerade as reasoned and moral thought. I’ve been lurking around this site for years and it still boggles my mind some of the completely nonsensical stuff that I read.
It’s like American values stuck in Bizarro World. You know– “we had to destroy the village to save it” kind of thinking. Except in this case, it’s “we have to destroy our country’s values in order to save it from the terrorists!”
Its when “neoconism” comes face to face with reality that it breaks down into the long list of infantile attacks that you summed up in your post. Then you see what its real intellectual underpinnings are.
It is a failed ideology and destined for the dustbin of history right next to Stalinism.
-z
November 29th, 2007 at 3:03 am
zlocke,
Wow, you couldn’t have said it better. I’m new to the site, but my impressions mirror yours. I’m especially amused by the condemnation of victimhood here until the neocons & war supporters rush to embrace it when challenged. They are shocked, shocked that someone would deign to talk back to them, or confront directly their ad hominem that bunker describes very well. And like most spoiled sports, they hate being lampooned, this serious, serious group here.
My conclusion is that their arguments go only so far, because the neocon theory is an unwieldy amalgam of moralistic democractic nation building fused with a real authoritarian unilateral militaristic activism, and an embrace of what only can be described as an American-style imperialism. As it plays out in Iraq, it has been an unmitigated disaster.
Colin Powell cut through their BS in seconds when he recited, in exasperation, to the neocon hawks the now famous Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. Boy, was he right.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Over and over again in this thread, people like X and Laura and Bunkerbuster demonstrate that the only way they can respond to criticism of their reasoning is to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent the criticism. As just one example, Stumbley writes to Laura:
“No one denies that WMD were part of the reason for the invasion; it’s just that folks like you keep pumping WMD as the only reason. It’s just not true.”
Now comes X:
“Stumbley, cherry picking got us into this war, and your cherry picking is no decent defense of it. See, if you read the entire document, you’ll come across this gem:
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
So, the term WMD is specifically used in the resolution, which makes it difficult to argue that we didn’t go to war over WMDS. If you’re intellectually honest that is.”
The cherrypicker lectures on cherrypicking, using intellectual dishonesty to warn against intellectual dishonesty. Perfect!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Awww. Now see what you nasty neocons have done? You’ve hurt the bunker’s feelings. You people are being mean to him, and to “liberal” weenies everywhere, and for no reason! Only because you’re neocon “spoiled sports”, “authoritarian unilateral militaristic” activists, who spout “BS”, and are given to “infantile attacks”! Yes, those “ugly, infantile personal attacks so many conservatives unleash when their claims are challenged by liberals”, you nasty neocons
with your “conservative proclivity for personal insult as a mode of political discourse”. I mean, we nice liberals, we don’t go around saying snotty things like “please try to read more closely…or, at all”, or “honestly it wastes my time to have to educate you”, now do we? Noooo. Sure, maybe we do like to misspell “chauvanist” over and over, or make cultured and intellectual references to insightful movie dialogue (”yee haw”), or pointed interjections to the conversation (”boogah boogah”), but that’s jes us smart guys messin wit ya. I mean, you do make “ludicrous arguments”, and all you chauvanists [sic] do have “ludicrously simplistic “moral superiority” notions”, but I don’t think you really mean to be funny, do you? Maybe because with “your paranoid and two-dimensional world view”, you can only make “stupied and racist comment”.
Yeah! How’s that!
Stop crying, bunker, they’re not worth it. They’re just a bunch of chauvanits!
You’re so mean.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
But again, all of this moral highground seems disingenuous given our own complicity in the killing fields of Iraq during the Reagan years.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
November 29th, 2007 at 9:09 am
But again, all of this moral highground seems disingenuous given our own complicity
Fine, then, forget the “moral highground”, Laura, and try to focus on the likely consequences — as opposed to the hoped for ones — of premature American withdrawal: namely, a large number of additional civilian deaths, and a power vacuum which would be an open invitation to every islamist terrorist gang still operating.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am
@Laura:
So you wanted Iran to win that war?
You repeated a statement from a previous posting, without replying to my response.
I will repost part of that. You said, among other things:
I replied, among other things.
I repeat: did you want Iran to win that war? Are you afraid to reply to my questions?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Arguing with Laura and Xanth and Bunk and Jim (assuming they’re not all just sockpuppets for the same twelve-year-old) is literally pointless.
They/he aren’t going to change their minds, and they certainly aren’t going to change any minds by posting here. That’s not why they’re doing it. They’re just seething with hatred for America, Americans, Bush, Christians, and Western Civilization in general. By posting their lies and insults here they get the satisfaction of hurting everyone they disagree with. Wasting our time.
Don’t argue with them — it’s like bailing the ocean. Their arrogance and ignorance are as limitless as the sea, and their hate is as vast as space.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:57 am
A reply to Neo’s original post.
If we do bear some responsibility for creating this situation or allowing it to happen, would we not then bear an even greater responsibility to do our best to stop it, to remedy it?
He believes Petraeus is the cause of the deaths. That if Petraeus was truly willing to shoulder the responsibility, then Petraeus would leave and thus do the Iraqis a favor.
The US, is after all, causing the problems in Iraq, by Bunker’s estimation and the Left’s as well.
On a level playing correct, that is correct, if you ignore the ethics of it. After all, would war happen if the people that are facing enslavement simply allowed themselves to be enslaved? Without resistance from both sides, wars could never happen, Neo. Therefore, technically, the capitulation and admission of defeat by one or the other side, would end the war. The ethics, of course, is a different issue than the causality.
As such, it would be morally reprehensible.
While that is so, it would be less efficient as a method to stop the war than simply making one side capitulate. Because the Left sees the US as propping up the weakened women and children in Iraq’s Civil War, they see our removal as a very fast method to create a victor in Iraq, thus ending the war there. Civil or not.
See, it’s those pesky facts that keep coming up and doing you folks in.
Those are what are known as badfacts stumbley, not goodfacts.
The capstone of civilization is the recognition that the state alone has police authority, that is the right to undertake violence on behalf of the community.
I guess that explains why socialism and the Left were never really grassroots and bottom up hierarchy orientated in the first place. It also explains why they don’t like Petraeus’ COIN strategy in Iraq for arming the neighborhoods under threat of terrorism.
Instead, the U.S. chose to act as a vigilante in Iraq. Again, this doesn’t make all their actions ipso facto immoral, but it does place them significantly lower in the moral hierarchy.
Well, I have actually spoken about Ophi (at Bookworm’s) and Chris White’s (at here) preference as to what constituted the highest moral authority for them and theirs. The UN is one of the highest, if not THE highest, moral authority around. The Left, after all, does prefer top down hierarchical structures over bottom up ones.
I did say that violence can only be authorized by the international community, i.e. the UN, for the Left. This point is easy to understand, but it is much harder to accept for an ethical person.
Without U.S. interference, there’s a very good chance the Soviets would have killed bin Laden and wiped out his forces. No 9/11.
Also no Massoud Shah or Karzai. A victory for the top down believers of the UN.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
It truly is funny to me that I talk about WMD, you all want to change the subject.
9/11 was the reason we went to Iraq; because the “lessons” of 9/11…well, you know the rest.
WMD was the “gathering threat, imminent threat” that gave us the context for war.
How conveniently you change the subject.
The support of Bush and his principles is like that of a truly dysfunctional family, that I am sure many of you therapists see in your offices each and every day. The codependent family struggling with the father or son’s addiction; the family’s unwavering support of their actions. Wow, what a breakthrough moment.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am
***It’s worth repeating the delicious irony that neoneo started this blog with the feeling that she was being mistreated by liberals who disagreed with her support for Bush and the war.***
I guess I wasn’t addressing you in particular, Bankerbuster.
I was making a general statement about the political left… care to identify the “personal” in that?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“It truly is funny to me that I talk about WMD, you all want to change the subject,” says Laura, changing the subject.
That’s gold, comedy gold.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Laura states:
One poster replies to Laura.:
Ample documentary proof, with multiple citations of the Iraq War Resolution of October 2002, is supplied to support the statement that WMDs were not the ONLY reason to go to war.
Laura replies:
Since multiple posters had addressed Laura’s assertion that “WMD was THE reason we went to war. Period.”, and did NOT change the subject, as she so claimed, I conclude that the following poster was correct in concluding that it is a waste of time to “dialogue” with Laura.
I also note that Laura still refuses to address my questions to her.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Mrs. Whatsit:
Thanks for actually reading my post. Apparently, unlike Laura, X, and bunky-boy, you have NOT wasted your mind.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
further to this statement:
***It’s worth repeating the delicious irony that neoneo started this blog with the feeling that she was being mistreated by liberals who disagreed with her support for Bush and the war.***
When leftists critics exhaust their “conservatives are stupid / bigots / religious wackos” script…
they commence with the “conservatives are nasty” script…
either way, it’s too avoid honest debate of any kind…
blockbuster, xantec, laura, etc. - your unqualified speculations / theories / assertions (ie. “without u.s. interference in Afghanistan, the Soviets would have destroyed Hussein”) may play well in the Times, Time, Newsweek, the PUffington Host, the Daily KKK, not here.
RH
November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Don’t argue with them — it’s like bailing the ocean. Their arrogance and ignorance are as limitless as the sea, and their hate is as vast as space.
This coming from someone who thinks that being a liberal means you ought to joint he Klan. Really Tri, you just dig the hole deeper, silly analogies aside.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am
“…destroyed Bin Laden…” rather
November 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
It truly is funny to me that I talk about WMD, you all want to change the subject.
9/11 was the reason we went to Iraq; because the “lessons” of 9/11…well, you know the rest.
WMD was the “gathering threat, imminent threat” that gave us the context for war.
Laura:
o Saddam brokered a deal with the UN to stay in power after the 1st gulf war.
o That deal included international monitoring of his weapons program.
o He broke that deal in 1998 by expelling the inspectors and declaring factories and site ‘off limits’ to monitoring.
o The Clinton administration bombed Iraq for 3 days in 1998 “to destroy his capability to manufacture WMDs”
Those are inarguable facts.
Now, reason with me here if you are able:
o From the above facts was it likely, or not likely that Saddam was building WMD?
o Was Clinton incorrect in bombing Iraq in ‘98?
o How could we determine the state of his weapons programs after ‘98?
o How could the UN leave him in power after he violated the deal that left him in power?
o Could we occupy Iraq by Air indefinitely?
I welcome any and all answers to the above questions.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am
“No one denies that WMD were part of the reason for the invasion; it’s just that folks like you keep pumping WMD as the only reason. It’s just not true.”
Yeah, and that’s in a later comment Mrs., one that I didn’t read before responding to Stumbley. His original comment made it sound like his response was that we didn’t go to war over WMDs, which is what I responded to. Which you would know, if you understand that comments come in a certain order on a blog.
So there, I’ve correctly characterized your argument. It’s still wrong. Now tell me how I’m being intellectually dishonest. Or better yet, actually try to argue with me. You’ll find both efforts to be frustrating.
And that hardly undermines my point. People like Stumbley honestly, sincerely believe that we went to war in Iraq premised on a humanitarian rationale. This is hogwash. We could have invaded Iraq at anytime before 9/11 if the American people had been motivated to do so out of humanitarian reasons. We did not. Consequently, the Bush administration specifically chose the issue of WMDs to “sell” the war, so to speak. Secondly, the Bush administration told Americans that we would not be in Iraq for a lengthy period of time, that the transition would be short and relatively painless (at least compared to what we’ve seen.) This was not actually a lie, as they themselves were unprepared for how unready the Iraqis were ready to take over the government. This does not support the idea that we were all THAT interested in a democratic transition; more stability, than anything else.
Lastly, history demonstrates that the humanitarian rationale is always included where possible in rationales for war. Recall, even the Nazis attempted to justify the seizure of Czechoslovakia out of concern for the Germans who lived there and were being “oppressed” by the Czech government. The humanitarian rationale had little to no significance in bringing about war, compared the WMD rationale. The humanitarian rationale served in advance only to sucker liberal hawks, and now it serves as a convenient fiction to right wing war hawks.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Lastly, history demonstrates that the humanitarian rationale is always included where possible in rationales for war. Recall, even the Nazis attempted to justify the seizure of Czechoslovakia out of concern for the Germans who lived there and were being “oppressed” by the Czech government.
‘Cuz, y’know, the Bush administration is just like the Nazi’s!
I’m invoking Godwin’s Law right now: You Lose.
I stand by all of my statements above about the filthy left and dirty, dirty leftists….
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Awww. Now see what you nasty neocons have done? You’ve hurt the bunker’s feelings.
And then you go on to make yet another substance-less, mocking, and crass assertion, only further proving Bunker’s point. Honestly Stumbley, do you not see the connection?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Laura, whose attention to facts is “only a dream.” ( sorry, Johnny Mercer):
President Bush:
All these difficult questions piling up for Laura. (see Gray, Gringo).
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
It’s not us anti-American libs that claim most of the Iraqi deaths have been innocents, it’s the American command in Iraq that claims it, due to the bloody fight between the Sunnis & the Shia the past three years–if you still think that most of the thousands of people who have died there were jihadists & al Qaeda, you’re dreaming. Again, all of the US commanders have stated for years that they were a small part of the problem, the sectarian violence, which is thankfully on hold right now, has always been the crisis there, whether attacking our forces or each other.
That’s why the conservative cry to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here (were they going to invade, or what?) has seemed to me silly on its face. The Sunni & Shia weren’t coming here, and al Qaeda can launch a terror strike anytime they want, as any other nut group could. Our being in Iraq doesn’t seem to matter much, since al Qaeda has continued their attacks in Europe & Indonesia. Right now Amercan commanders, according to reports, fear a renewal of the sectarian war, not al Qaeda.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am
‘Cuz, y’know, the Bush administration is just like the Nazi’s!
Did I say that Gray? If you would read more carefully and slowly, you’d understand my basic point. Here, let me explain this in words I think you can understand. By utilizing the Nazis, about the worst example possible in the modern world of unmitigated and hostile aggression, I am trying to demonstrate to you that even the worst regimes in history have utilized the humanitarian rationale. The point being, the humanitarian rationale is frequently appended to the actual reasons for war, as political and diplomatic cover. No, the Bush administration are not Nazis. But even ruthless tyrannies want to look good going to war, so it’s hard to imagine that modern democracies wouldn’t want the same. So, the humanitarian rationale doesn’t count for much, unless it is perhaps and legitimately the only reason for war.
There, I’ve done my part to educate you today. You’re welcome.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
“People like Stumbley honestly, sincerely believe that we went to war in Iraq premised on a humanitarian rationale.”
Well, yes, X, I believe that that was one of the reasons we invaded, as I also believe that regime change (and its attendant humanitarian consequences) was also one of the reasons. The difference between me and people like you, bunky, and Laura is that you constantly refer to WMD as the only reason for the conflict, completely ignoring facts. It’s just not true; it’s willful ignorance, and it undermines any of your arguments because you’re approaching the arguments from an intellectually dishonest premise.
It’s very difficult to have a substantive discussion with people who constantly, willfully, religiously ignore facts.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:43 a