From: "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bryon Daly wrote:
That's fine with me. My apologies for the delay but I have been busy and unwell. And the weekend was dedicated to the two 'A Storm of Sword' books. :)
A big delay on this end as well: the list was hungup so I didn't get this until Tues-Wed, and my workload has ramped up so I don't have a lot of free time to work on this reply. Hence, I'm going to try to be brief and will probably skip over some stuff.
> Here are some recent articles about Iraq that show it isn't > all bad in Iraq.
But I'm not claiming that it is all bad in Iraq. Just that things *are* bad, in many places, in many ways and that even after six months, the security situation is worsening instead of improving. 'Shambles' after all just means a condition of great disorder...
It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but to me, the terms you like, shambles and quagmire, essentially *mean* "it's all bad" or "it's almost entirely bad".
Unless the security improves, the reconstruction efforts would go slower and cost more. The slower the reconstruction, the larger the number of disgruntled Iraqis...
I totally agree.
> For some reason, these type stories don't seem to get > much/any coverage from > mainstream media.
Well, most of the links you give below are all mainstream media. :)
I deliberately picked meanstream media, because I figured it would have more credibility than, say, the numerous blog reports I've seen.
The problem is, until just recently when people started to vocally complain, and then the White House started a counter-PR push, positive stories in the mainstream media were virtually nonexistent, and the only news from Iraq I'd regularly see were body count reports and talk of increasing hatred and chaos.
Then a 'quagmire', a difficult or precarious situation - what is wrong with this description?
'Quagmire' has a very strong connotation to many Americans (I think, but at
least for myself) as being trapped in an unwinnable situation, with no
possible method of progress or way to win. The quintessential quagmire
image is Vietnam, which many people consider to have been unwinnable, and
a costly, painful, disatrous mess. Many of the anti-war people using the
word quagmire are trying to conjure up the image of Iraq as the next Vietnam,
being an equally unwinnable mess.
Oh, it's certainly too soon to declare a failure [and no need to do so right now either] but given that the army is stretched too thin and the Generals there need more troops, that the reconstruction costs are mounting up and that the public support is falling at home, that there isn't much of an international support to speak of and the Iraqis are getting impatient, that the troops morale seems to be low...given all that, surely, it isn't a stretch to define the situation as difficult?
It certainly is difficult! Incredibly so! One point you mention is "public support falling at home"... do you think that could possibly be related to the media's constant focus on the negative aspects of what is happening in Iraq?
And then what was perhaps the best bit: he holds that planning is not what is needed in Iraq. The best strategy for the US led Coalition in Iraq is muddling through.... Muddling through? At these costs? After alienating most of the planet? And then he is surprised at the amount of criticsm?
Doesn't it stand to reason that when you try to establish a new precedent in international relations, in the teeth of near-global opposition, you need to have 'plans' that translate as something more efficient that 'muddling through'?
I don't remember the article anymore, and unfortunately, the link went stale, so I can't read the full context to discuss it. In any case, I had posted this link mainly for the part I had quoted inline.
> http://www.ajc.com/monday/content/epaper/editions/monday/opini > on_f3e6393975d4906b00ea.html > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y24441226 > This article, by Democrat US Rep Jim Marshall, makes my > point. He believes > the > media is only portraying the bad and ignoring the good, which > hurts the US's > goals to reconstruct Iraq:
I had read this article earlier and I had one area of disagreement with what he said:
> "The falsely bleak picture weakens > our national > resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy."
>From all the accounts which I have read, the damping of Iraqi co-operation has less to do with the reports in the Western media and more to do with the ground situations: the lack of security, the daily discomforts, the continuing raids, the massive unemployment, the feeling of being excluded from the reconstruction of their country, increasing theism in some areas, increased targetting of the Iraqi police and other 'US collaboraters' by the guerillas/terrorists, etc., etc.
As for emboldening the enemy, I am not sure just who he is refering to here. If he is talking of the people who are shooting at the US troops in Iraq or blowing up buildings and people over there, I think he is giving too much importance to the role the Western media plays in their world view. If he talking of the domestic opposition, then they are not the enemy and labelling them thus won't win their co-operation.
I'm certain Jim Marshall is referring to the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere when he says "enemy".
Is it just the western media? Is other media around the globe actually giving balanced reporting of the Iraq situation? (I'm finding that hard to believe)
Largely negative media coverage, with special focus on terrorist actions:
==> Increasingly lower public support worldwide for Iraq reconstruction
==> Other nations refuse to support US efforts, or try to thwart them
==> Increased Iraqi fears US will pull out and abandon them to chaos
==> Fearful Iraqis avoid cooperating with US
==> Terrorists see the feedback that their actions are working *
==> Encouraged terrorists step up their efforts* Because the only way they can win is by convincing the US to pull out. the terrorism is in a big part designed to destroy American (and wordwide) confidence in the Iraq reconstruction process, so everyone begins to think "quagmire" and demand a pullout.
> No one (especially not me) is saying things are perfect in > Iraq, or even > great, > but I do think that the perception that Iraq is an utter > failure of chaos, > quagmire, and US resentment as some seem to be hoping it is, is false.
If that is the perception, then it certainly is false. It is a difficult situation, there is chaos but it is not an utter failure. It is not even necessarily headed that way yet. However, there are enough valid grounds of criticism of the current CPA administration policy in Iraq and the fact is, the US has neither infinite resources, nor infinite time to get things right over there.
I agree.
> >I am not assuming that only the clueless/duped were pro-war. > What I *am* > >assuming is that a vast majority of the pro-war group was *not* > >well-informed. > > I see only a small difference in degree between what I said > and what you > said: > I said "only", you said "vast majority". I said > "clueless/tricked", and you > said "*not* well-informed". Sounds pretty similar, to me. :-)
Merely the difference between 'all' and 'most'. :) I find that most people are not too active politically and whenever there is mass mobilisation on any political issue, I find it safe to assume that most people on all sides of the argument wouldn't be well informed about all the aspects of the said issue.
All sides? So you would agree with the statement that "a vast majority of the anti-war group was *not* well-informed"? :-)
Besides, people have many different motives for making political decisions and, unfortunately, the efficacy of a particular policy/politician is usually not a criterion which comes above partisan ties, media appeal or media blitz.
I agree.
Well, I don't disagree with your first three reasons: I just wasn't sure that war was the best option at that time. However, it is done now and there is no point quibbling over it anymore.
I agree.
> 5) I think that even if Saddam's nuke research program was on > hold because > of > sanctions and inspections, that it was only a matter of time > before France, > Russia and the other anti-sanctions nations got the sanctions > lifted, or > began > cheating on them, and I think that as soon as the heat and > scrutiny was off > Saddam, he'd have their nuke program back in full gear.
I am not sure why you are so sure that the sanctions would have been lifted. The US and UK were quick to veto any relaxation of the sanctions in the years preceeding the war. Given the increased threat perception by both these govts., why would they suddenly withhold the veto the next time the subject came up?
Between France, Russia and other nations wanting to remove the sanctions,
reports on the children death toll from them, the renewed inspections not
finding anything, and sooner or later a new administration, I'm not convinced
the political will to keep the sanctions in force would remain for more than
the next 5 years or so. I guess I'm also not convinced that sanctions and
inspections would have done anything more than slow Saddam's acquistion of nukes
down, in the long term.
> 6) Saddam was *paying* the families of Palestinian suicide > bombers to kill > Israelis in terrorist attacks. I think peace there can only > happen through > reasoned compromise by both sides, and as long as Saddam was feeding > terrorists > money, that wasn't going to happen.
A lot of govts. in the world pay terrorists to kill people [well not just that, they train them and arm them too]. Saddam's removal wouldn't make much of a difference in the number of Palestinian suicide bombers. There are still enough people who would be paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
I think a lot of Palestinian terrosists saw Saddam not just as a money source, but as a patron and symbol. Remember, he attacked Israel during Desert Storm.
> 7) I think that Al Queda and other middle eastern terrorist > groups are > largely > fed members by the disaffected poor of countries like Saudi > Arabia, where a > tiny minority basks in vast wealth, while the vast majority > live in poverty, > and are told that the US is to blame for their misery. If we > can transform > Iraq into a stable democracy, it will provide a > counter-example and put > pressure on the governments of Saudi, etc to provide reform.
I am not sure that the democratisation of Iraq would have a dominoes effect on the Mid-East governments but it ought to at least provide some comfort/inspiration to the people who are struggling for democracy in the area. And if a stable, democratic Iraq is established, it would definitely be good for the Iraqi people.
I'm not sure it will have that desired effect, either, but I will hope. Interestingly, I saw an article talking about some (fairly small) democratic reforms just now occuring in Saudi. I couldn't find the link, unfortunately.
> I think Bush did a crappy job selling the war to the American > people, the > UN, > and the world. I think part of it was that he felt it was > the right thing > to > do, already had Congress's OK (which was all he really > needed), and didn't > feel > compelled to really get better world buy-in, unfortunately. > I also think > that > all the assorted reasons they were giving had at least some level of > validity > to them.
The mushroom clouds over the Merkin cities didn't, the connection between Saddam and Al-quaeda didn't and very few countries actually agreed that the US was in the right by flouting to the will of the UNSC to enforce the resolutions of the UNSC.
I never felt the nukes were an imminent threat, but I do feel they were a long term concern. As I took it, we know he *wanted* nukes, we feared he would *eventually* get them, he's ruthless enough to use it, and once he got one, it would be too late to do anything it.
This is a one of the 'huge' reasons Wolfie mentions and I am still not sure that he believes this. If he does believe this, I am not sure why. The first thought I had upon reading this was that Laden would just replace 'troops in Saudi Arabia' with 'troops in Iraq' as his grievance and he seems to have already done that. Appeasement by aggression doesn't usually work....
I'm not an expert at all, but I think Osama's grievance is "infidels in the Holy Land", which is Saudi, where Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, are located. I don't think that Iraq falls under the Holy Land claim.
I agree that appeasement is a bad idea so I wouldn't agree with this as a primary reason for the war, but if it's a big recruiting tool for Osama, and relocating our bases to Iraq is in our interests anyway, then it's a pretty good side benefit.
> Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental > concerns. One is > weapons of > mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the > third is the > criminal > treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say > there's a > fourth > overriding one which is the connection between the first two. > Sorry, hold on > again.
> The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a > reason to help the > Iraqis but > it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, > certainly not on the > scale we > did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one > about which > there's > the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I > think everyone > agrees > that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern > Iraq in this > recent > go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was > connected to > this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.
Now let's see, he mentions three prime concerns: WMDs, support to terrorism [al-qaeda this time, not the Palestinian bombers] and the treatment of the Iraqi people. He considers the last to be an insufficient reason to put American lives on risk at such a scale and that is the only reason which has been borne out by the post-war findings.
About helping the Iraqis being insufficient reason, I think Wolfie was addressing the point that if you say helping the people of Iraq is the prime reason for the war, then you are immediately asked if the US should then invade every other bad-guy nation to help out *those* people. (A sticky question!) I suspect Wolfie's response to that would be something like that it is infeasible to do so in all cases, but in some cases it is worth doing, because it also serves other US concerns (ie: eliminating Saddam as a threat).
His son-in-law who defected and told the US that the WMDs had been destroyed. Blix and his team who kept on reporting co-operation from the Iraqis and progress on the ground in the weeks leading upto the war.
Is that the son-in-law who was told he'd be welcomed home to Iraq, then returned to Iraq and was brutally murdered by Uday the next day? If so, I'm not sure how unbiased he was (since he obviously wanted to return to Iraq), and how knowledgable he was (given they were planning on killing him).
I also remember reading of at least one Iraqi scientist talking about an active nuke research program.
Most countries in the world are at the top of somebody's enemies list. India used to be at the top of Pakistan's enemy list until recently. Pakistan is a nuclear power, they finance and support terrorists. They *can* carry out their frequent threats of attacking India and historical precedents show their willingness to do the same. None of these seem to be reasons enough for India to pre-emptively attack Paksitan today. Wouldn't you agree?
Well, part of the goal to remove Saddam was to prevent Iraq from becoming a nuclear power. Once a country has nukes, it's far, far more difficult to take direct action against it, because of the potential of nuclear retaliation. You can't put the djinni back in the bottle, as they say.
Aside from that, does Pakistan have a history of using lesser WMD's against its internal/external foes?
Are the terrorists that Pakistan supports attacking Indian targets? Is the Pakistan funding well established/provable? If so on both of those, I would regard Pakistan's actions as acts of war on India and respond accordingly.
> And many of those same nations that were saying right before > the war to > give containment a chance were the same ones that were trying > to get the > Iraq > sanctions reduced before the war talk started, so my guess is > that if the US > backed down, withdrew its troops, and took the pressure off, > the "sanctions > are killing millions of Iraqi babies" talk would start up > again, and the > inspectors would get kicked out again, etc.
Why couldn't the US have kept the troops there until Blix and his men finished the inspections they were carrying out? Further decisions could have been made after taking Blix's report into consideration. See, that has been the most puzzling aspect of this war for me: just what *was* the hurry? It was a matter of weeks, not months or years. *Why* was there such a huge and immediate threat perception that it was considered necessary to alienate so many people/countries, and attack Iraq at that particular moment?
Finished the inspections? How could they be finished? I say that for two reasons: 1) Before the inspectors were kicked out, there were something like 3000 of them working in Iraq for years, and they had much work left to do and much stuff was left unaccounted for. I think Blix's crew was around 300 people, taking a few months. 2) The inspections were not just meant to find what was there, but to make sure nothing new was built, and no new programs started. As long as Saddam couldn't be trusted, the inspections need to continue.
As far as why not wait the extra few weeks:
1) I think a lot of people perceived that request as just a delay game by
the French, since they wouldn't agree to a deadline or any fixed conditions
for agreeing to the invasion. In particular, once France rejected the
British proposal, I had the feeling that France would never OK the war,
at that point.
2) Every week the troops were sitting there waiting, was millions/billions
in cost for the US, above and beyond what the actual war would potentially
cost.
3) A few more weeks, and the fierce Iraq summer season would be starting,
and with the believed likely possible use of chemical weapons by Iraq,
wearing those bio-suits in the heat would have greatly slowed the war effort
and cost lives. And then there was the the upcoming sandstorm season. I
had seen some stuff saying that if the war wasn't started around when it was,
the heat suit factor and sandstorms would have made it prohibitive to
start the war until the summer ended, months later
_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
