Bryon Daly wrote: > 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.
Yet another delay on my part, this time due to Diwali and work. :) > 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". I don't like these terms, I just don't see much point in objecting to them. It is not as if they are completely inaccurate. > 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. I saw the positive reports too but they have always been fewer than the negative reports. > >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. Ah yes. I came across this explanation somewhere else too, soon after I received your mail. That does explain a lot of the reactions to this word. > 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? It certainly could. :) Though I would say that the reason probably lie more in the way the war was sold to the people: a quick war, armies welcomed as liberators, a reasonably quick exit and a reconstruction which is paid for, by and large, by the Iraqi oil revenues. The war which was sold is not the war which is being fought in Iraq today. There is no wide-spread world support for disarming a cruel dictator who was about to destroy civilization, people's family members are too far away, for longer than they were supposed to be away, the reconstruction costs are mounting and post war evidence suggests that the administration ought to have factored all this in when planning and selling the war. The public, sir, has always been a fickle customer and when the goods are not what they were touted to be, discontent is but natural. Personally, I would hold the administration more responsible than the media for the falling public support. > 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) Well, the Indian media takes turns printing the CPA/US statements one day and reports on the terrorist attacks/demonstrations the next day. :) I haven't seen too many positive articles in Arab media but they certainly have a lot of articles on how the situation needs to be tackled now. The Pakistani media has had very few positive statements to make... I don't know how the African media is reporting this. > Largely negative media coverage, with special focus on > terrorist actions: ..is the norm anywhere in the world. :) > ==> Increasingly lower public support worldwide for Iraq > reconstruction ...has been the norm since before the war stared. > ==> Other nations refuse to support US efforts, or try to > thwart them ...has definitely been the case with this war. And vice-versa. > ==> Increased Iraqi fears US will pull out and abandon > them to chaos Afaik, these fears were more common in the immediate aftermath of the war. I haven't seen them crop up lately. > ==> Fearful Iraqis avoid cooperating with US Has less to do with media reports and more to do with the assassination of the 'collaboraters', the CPA policies and frequent explosions. > ==> 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. I disagree here. The way I look at it, the terrorists are currently in a win-win situation: they either get to keep on attacking the US forces in Iraq [consider Laden's latest tape] or they convince the US to withdraw. Both scenarios suit them - the former is a delight, given the way they feel. The latter can be claimed as a great victory for Allah. > 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. That is certainly true. But unless and until the caches of weapons on the ground dry up, there is better intelligence available to the CPA and there are more troops to guard the key points, the explosions would continue. Even if the media stops harping on concepts like 'quagmire' and just reports the number of explosions and the dead, the world [and the US] confidence in the Iraqi reconstruction would be shaky. See, the ground situation in Iraq [the increasingly better co-ordinated attacks, the polls of Iraqis etc.] is what is causing the loss of confidence, not the media reporting the ground situation. Either the ground situation has to be improved or a media-blackout needs to be enforced. The latter wouldn't really help increase confidence, even if it were possible in today's age of internet. Neither would it stop the terrorists - the people in Iraq would still know how many people were killed in their cities, how many explosions were heard....As long as the Iraqis are still influenced, as long as the actual costs of occupation and reconstruction go up,the terrorists have no reason to stop. > >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"? :-) Oh, definitely. :) > 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. Actually, I came across an interview of Powell's where he was talking about the need to take another look at the sanctions and re-design the sanctions in a way which would hurt the people less and Saddam more. So there might have been some changes after all. > 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. But that is all one can ever hope for. And that is all that has been achieved even after this war. At least in terms of US security and Saddam. > 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 don't recall any articles on reform but I did read about the protests for democratic reforms and the subsequent arrests. > 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. And how has the situation changed after the war? He's still alive, has access to a lot of money, has considerably less to lose and has more of a reason to want to attack America. > >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. Iraq doesn't fall under the claim of 'Holy Land' but it is still a Muslim country and the seat of one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Osama is now calling from the removal of the US troops from Iraq. I doubt anything other than the total destruction of America would ever appease OBL. Some people seem to feed on destruction and can always find new 'reasons' to keep on perpetrating violence. To think that moving the troops from Saudi Arabia would appease Osama is akin to thinking that a temple in Ayodhya would appease the Hindutva fanatics. What this notion doesn't take into account is the fact that there are many more temples/mosques, many more 'grievances', many more excuses for terrorism. > 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. Ah, but the war on Iraq has turned out to be a far bigger recruiting tool for OBL than the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Not just that, Iraq is easier to slip into than the US and, today, Iraq has enough American targets. > 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!) Indeed. :) A friend of mine always brings up Burma but I think I am going for Uzbekistan these days... > 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). But how and when was Saddam a threat to the US? > 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). Yes, it was the same guy. His bias couln't have been more than Chalabi's and given his relationship to Saddam, his knowledge must have been extensive. Especially since they were planning to kill him: people who know too little are not usually killed in these circumstances. > I also remember reading of at least one Iraqi scientist > talking about an > active nuke research program. Afaik, no scientist has talked of an active nuclear program. One of the leading Iraqi nuclear scientists was killed at a checkpoint, another dug up the plans and the centrifuge from his garden and a third one talked of a suspended nuclear 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? > Aside from that, does Pakistan have a history of using lesser WMD's > against its internal/external foes? If by lesser WMDs you mean the use of chemical or biological weapons, then no. Pakistan has never used anything other than conventional weapons against its enemies. > 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. Yes to both the questions. Pakistan has terrorist training camps in PoK, it spends more than a billion dollars a year to train and arm these jihadis and currently there seem to be some 2,500 jihadis on the other side of the border, waiting to slip in before the winter closes most of the routes. There has been enough proof of direct Pakistani involvement: Pakistani ID cards found on the bodies of dead terrorists, testimony of terrorists who were captured, interviews of the leaders of Let, Jem etc., statements made by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shareif [ex-Pakistani PMs] admitting the ISI funding of cross-border terrorism, money trails, the fact that people like Dawood Ibrahim [the man behind the Bombay Bomb blasts in '93] live openly in Karachi in the military areas etc., etc. Then there are indirect linkages like when Mushy recently offered a cease-fire in Kashmir for a month if India was willing to sit and disuss Kashmir. Strange, isn't it, how the 'freedom fighters' in Kashmir take directions from the Pakistani President? :) This is a war they have been fighting for almost two decades now. The BJP etc occasionally talk of pre-emtive strikes to take out the training camps in PoK [Pakistan occuped Kashmir] but I have always found that a rather ridiculous notion: the terrorists wouldn't be obliging enough to collect in one spot and wait to be killed [though I'm sure we can get upto 60% of them with a quick strike], there is not enough co-operation between India and Paksitan that the Pakistani govt. would help us search the rest out, the strikes wouldn't harm the madrasas which turn out these jihadis, the strikes wouldn't stop the funding which buys the weapons... As far as I can see, only two things would be achieved: we would kill around 40-60% of the current lot of terrorists and we would prepare a fertile ground for the mullahs who preach hatred and jihad. There is something incredibly scary about having your country bombed and attacked in the absence of direct military provocation. The next time someone in Pakistan talks of 'those evil Hindus who are out to subjugate muslims and pervert Islam', more people would be receptive to the idea. Still, thanks to the war in Iraq, not only are the Islamic hardliners in Paksitan beginning to see India as a bulwark against the US [and encouraging peaceful relations with India], a lot of the international jihadis in the valley are making their way to Iraq. At least that is what the reprots over the last couple of months have indicated. > >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? The way Blix wantd them to finished: cover the area, talk to the people, makes your notes, observations and reports. If there are indications of a militarisation program, then furhter action needs to be taken. If there are no indications of any such program, then you repeat the inspections at certain intervals and refrain from waging a war. > 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. The French were very clear : they saw nothing in Blix's report to warrant a military action against Saddam at that point of time. Had Blix come up with something damaging, they would have had to either agree to the military action or give reasons for their refusal. Either way, the wait would have been less damaging for the US. > 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. Let us see, the current costs of billeting the troops in Iraq is around 4 million dollars per week. Blix wanted 3-5 weeks at the most, so that would have come to 20 million dollars at the max. How much did the war cost and how much is the occupation and the reconstruction costing the US? > 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 But all this is based on the theoretical inevitability of the war. This war wasn't inevitable - I just can't understand why it was portrayed that way. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
