posted
More and more we are reading articles like this in the paper.
quote:FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to nearly all of the country.
The fighting in Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi, where commanders confirmed 12 Marines were killed late Tuesday, was part of an intensified uprising involving both Sunni and Shiites that now stretched from Kirkuk in the north to the far south.
So first we claim that we had to start a unilateral, unprovoked, and unpopular invasion of Iraq because we KNEW they had weapons of mass destruction that were an immediate threat to us. Then, when that turned out to be false, we claim that we were just kidding about that being the main reason - that the REAL reason we had to do it was to help the Iraqi people.
My question is this: How does civil war help the Iraqis, or America for that matter? We claim we are bringing democracy, but the signs of that are few and far between. Instead what we see is the replacement of one evil but stable tyrant with an unstable, violent anarchy where fanatical clerics can raise armies at will and where terrorists can now roam freely among the confusion. The Bush administration claims this is just a step on the way to democracy, but isn't this far more similar to all those other instances of nation-building we've tried in the Middle East - instances that led to people like Saddam taking power?
Right now, Iraq appears to be descending into chaos, with hundreds of Iraqis and tens of Americans dying each day. Mosques are being destroyed (see article for today's Mosque attack), whole cities are under seige (Fallujah), and attacks are widespread. This is a full year after the war supposedly ended, and only months before the new Iraqi government is supposed to take over.
It sounds nice to say "let's just take out the tyrants and put democracy instead," but in reality things are more complicated than that. In fact, in general, reality is far more complicated than simply "taking out the evildoers". We, as a country, need to recognize this before we make the same mistake again and again.
Tres is saying that unilateral regime change and nation building is turning out to be more complicated and costly than we were led to believe. You reply by asking if he thinks we should be isolationist instead.
Come on.
That's like someone saying that they are unsure about whether gay marriage should be allowed, and you saying, 'you are in favor of euthanasia for gay people then?'
The gulf between the two things is just as wide.
Isolationism and regime change through war are the two absolute extremes on the spectrum. I would be willing to bet Tres falls somewhere in the middle. As did most of the rest of the world, who were more than happy to use other means of encouraging change in Iraq, but drew the line and war.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take it you favor a more isolationist policy?
No, quite to the contrary. I favor international law, the rule of law/reason/fairness in international affairs, and the principle of self-governance - rather than the powerful nations attempting to manipulate the politics of weaker nations, no matter how noble their intentions.
posted
So, under international law, how many times may a conquered country violate it's cease-fire agreements before the country it's tkaing pot-shots at is allowed to re-open hostilities?
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
However many the international community decides (through the established process) is allowable.
If by "pot-shots" you mean the sort of minor things Saddam was doing to the U.S. (firing at planes patroling his nation, etc.), and by "re-open hostilities" you actually mean "starting an all-out invasion and overthrowing the country's government," I would think that number should be very large.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry I'm so dumb, slash. here's your chance to edumacate me.
quote: I favor international law, the rule of law/reason/fairness in international affairs, and the principle of self-governance - rather than the powerful nations attempting to manipulate the politics of weaker nations, no matter how noble their intentions.
how is this different? we should be involved in the world, by which you mean, observe everything but do nothing?
either you favor "interfering" (in a scientific sense) with other nations or you don't. true isolationists are the "don't" category. so you and tres aren't there. it's just that you think the "interference" should be no more than protestations of "please don't hurt us, or your own people. or not. whatever."
tres's original post did not seem to be saying, "the cost of nation-building is getting higher than we thought," it sounded more like, "it ain't worth it, and immoral besides." but,if you believe that nothing justifies war, you're right.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noted, dude, but that's not law, that's constant open negotiation.
Law is, we had our knee on their throat and we agreed to get up off of them if they obeyed a set of rules *which were decided upon by the international community*. We warned them that failure to comply with these rules could result in resumption of hostilities... and we waited, and they violated the agreement and we waited, and repeat ad nauseum. we had the right to go in a decade ago.
Whether or not it was a smart decision is one thing, but to say that we had no right to do it under international law is to say that cease fire agreements under international law are superceded by the transient wishes of the nations involved-- i.e. that it is pointless to bother with them.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's just that you think the "interference" should be no more than protestations of "please don't hurt us, or your own people. or not. whatever."
Do you really consider this to be an accurate and fair description of what I'd suggest?
Do you really believe the only three options are isolationism, mere "protestations", or unilateral and unprovoked invasions of countries?
I didn't call you dumb. I said that the leap from 'this war was a bad idea' to 'we should be isolationist' was dumb. And while I do not think you are personally dumb, I still think that leap is.
How on earth is believing in using the international bodies that exist, as Tres suggests, at all the same as isolationism? You are still losing me there.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Noted, dude, but that's not law, that's constant open negotiation.
In that case America and most other democracies are ruled by constant open negotiation, rather than law. After all, in America if you have a contract with someone and they break it, you DON'T get to do whateer you want with them - the courts and the democratically agreed-upon rules determine what you get to do with them. Often your peers get to decide what is fair and consistent with the laws. If you want to call that "constant open negotiation" fine, but it's how justice works within our country, and how it should work between countries in my view.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You *do* get to do whatever the contract says you can do, and in the case of a cease-fire when you've just utterly routed the other guy's army, the implication is "you violate this and we kick your ass". See "Carthago Delenda Est", "the Alamo" and "the Burning of Atlanta" for particulars on "we kick your ass".
Edit for clarity: the implication is that we've actually been quite merciful in Iraq.
[ April 07, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
You take them to court and TRY to do what the contract says you can, but believe me, it is never that easy. And more often than not, you wind up negotiating it down from the contractual penalties to some middle ground.
The Romans burned Carthage to the ground. The Mexicans killed every man at the Alamo. The US should kill every man in Iraq and burn it to the ground? The ability to do something does not automatically make it the right thing to do.
Post Edit:
I see what you are saying. But with Iraq in bitter turmoil right now, I think you would need to check with the Iraqis on whether or not destabilizing their country and beginning what will probably be a nasty and bloody religious civil war is merciful repurcussion for shooting at the occasional warplane.
[ April 07, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
agreed on that point, Slash. I think there was a 50's-60's era Supreme Court Justice who said "to have a right to do something is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."
But try not paying your electric bill and see if the power company polls your neighbors and gets the approval of local law enforcement and the courts before shutting you off...
Agents of a contract act based on their contracts all the time.... it's the rare exception that one goes before legal/civil review.
[ April 07, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just want to point out (again) that there are credible legal authorities that the invasion was legal within the scope of the U.N. Charter and previous U.N. resolutions. No authority has ruled on the merits of either position.
posted
Actually, it is very possible to drag such things on for months. The electric company may turn off your power, but you can go to court and actually force them to turn it back on by claiming some sort of hardship, and then force them to fight you in court.
Ever tried evicting someone who doesn't pay their rent? Be prepared for six months of legal battles.
Ever tried to collect on bad debt from a company? Be prepared to negotiate for pennies on the dollar, regardless of what the contract says.
Technically, any aggression from another country can be used as an 'act of war'. But most countries have adopted a policy of 'proportional response' in order to avoid having to go to war with every madman who fires a missile at a civilian aircraft.
I think the point being made here, is that the US response seems quite disproportionate to the Iraqi provocation.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You *do* get to do whatever the contract says you can do
You get to do whatever the court (created by the society of people you are in, representing their will) INTERPRETS the contract as saying you can do. You DON'T get to do whatever you think the contract says you can do - because the other guy probably thinks it says something different.
Ask Saddam what Iraq was entitled to do under the cease fire, and I bet it will be quite different from what the U.S. claims. The fair way to decide who can do what is not to let the more powerful party simply decide by force, but rather to let the community at large decide upon it by an established process.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, from a military (and political, if we're not going to ignore Clausewitz here) point of view, proportional response is not tremendously effective. Sean Connery's "Chicago Way" (from "the Untouchables") is much more reliable.
Of course, that character died horribly and it *was* gangland Chicago at the height of it's corruption, so YMMV
Xap, going back to my previous point, most contracts don't get to court, and the ones that do generally do so *after* some action has been taken. My objection is the way you treat this like there was no possible reason or purpose behind this action then some yahoo cowboy from Texas saying "let's spread democracy, y'all!"
Popular appeals from politicians have to be dumbed down for the simple reason that they are popular appeals. if you are going to look deeper to criticise, then you have to look deeper to understand, too. It's only fair.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like all Monday morning quarterbacking, this is about next time. Last time is a done deal. The question is, what would we do in the same situation tomorrow.
Would you do it all exactly the same way?
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK, like everyone else in the world, I think proportional responses suck.
But, they do have the advantage of keeping you from going to war with every single country that pisses you off. That's the upside.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
IN repsonse to this thread whether civil war is better for the Iraqis, I will post what I was thinking of elsewhere...
quote: I suspect we have no idea if it is making it worse or better. The answer depends more on the Iraqis than anyone else or anything America does.
I once heard an economic professor say citizens get the government they deserve. I have thought about that often...I am still thinking.
If they deserved Saddam, then it will be worse or as bad. If Saddam somehow got an unfair advantage over his citizens where they could not alter their government, then it will be very beneficial.
I have faith in the generals and the troops, if not the politicians they are working for. As such I believe that they have both hot-spots, Fuluja and the Shi'ite Cleric on the road to being removed as threats.
Every year in Iraq, under Sadaam and his psycho sons, hundreds were tortured, murdered, and emotionally scarred. What we are dealing with in Iraq now is the remnants of that scarring, combined with power plays from people who believe that Sadaam's rise to power is the best path--blood and tears--fear and betrayal.
So yes, a few weeks or months of this civil unrest is better for the people of Iraq than more decades of brutalization under Saddam.
This is not saying that we couldn't have done things better. This is not saying we still couldn't do things better. What this is saying is better this turmoil then our other option, running away and allowing some new brutalizer to bomb and threaten his way to be the next Iraqi Gang-Leader for life.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My question is this: How does civil war help the Iraqis, or America for that matter? We claim we are bringing democracy, but the signs of that are few and far between."
Is that so? I have to question this in all reality. Do you truly beleive that MOST of Iraq is not relativly quiet in regaurds to fighting and demonstrating? I really think that you are jumping to conclusions here when you assume this will destabilize into an Iraqi civil war. Although I don't necessarily blame you for it given that the sensationalist tendancies of our news orginizations. To paraphrase an American comander in Iraq, "A house that is burning down is news. A strong standing house is not."
Example: Headline: "Iraq in Flames"
This is kinda misleading. Is all of Iraq in revolt? No. Do you really think that there would be only a dozen or so American casualties if that were the case? No way.
Another example, although off the topic a bit... Headline: "Kerry: Bush acting like Drunken Sailor." I read the article tinking it was more smear tactics from Kerry and it said that he never said anything at all. It was some advisor in the Kerry campaign.
So lets try not to over react to a group of guerillas outlaws making trouble in Iraq. Yeah it sucks. Yes we are all concerned that it could become a larger problem. But what it sounds like to me is that all the rats are congregating in these few towns to support their misguided cleric. This is a good thinig. They will be easier to hit with less bombs that way.
posted
I think the real question is this, Tres. "Is sitting back carping and finding fault supposed to be better than rolling up your sleeves and helping?"
There is a very hard and heartbreaking task to be done here. What would you have us do now? What are you able to do to help us? Do you have a path forward that holds out some hope? Or are you just helping the ones who are trying their best to tear down everything that's built?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most countries are dictatorships. I don't want them to have any say over me so "international law" makes me shudder.
When people think of the UN they think of Western Europe, but there's a ton more countries in the UN than France and Germany and their satellites. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Syria and a horde of other dictatorships push the agenda of the UN.
A one world government sounds really cool till you concider that when they get opressive (and if we surrendered soviernty to the UN you can bet it would get opressive within a generation) there is absolutely no where to run.
quote:I think the real question is this, Tres. "Is sitting back carping and finding fault supposed to be better than rolling up your sleeves and helping?"
No, I don't think there's any disagreement on that issue. Nobody yet has argued the best solution was isolationism. I think the real question is, as the thread title suggests, is unilaterally overthrowing Saddam and starting a civil war really a good way of "rolling up your sleeves and helping" Iraq?
quote:What would you have us do now? What are you able to do to help us? Do you have a path forward that holds out some hope? Or are you just helping the ones who are trying their best to tear down everything that's built?
Oh, now we are stuck - at least to some degree. My plan would be to change this from a U.S. mission into a truly international mission, and give up all the power in Iraq that we stubbornly cling to as if we deserve it after beating Saddam. My plan would also be to turn over most of the decision-making to the Iraqis as soon as possible. We have gotten ourselves in too deep now to be able to free ourselves from the responsibility we have, but the first step towards fixing our mistakes is changing this from an American occupation to an international and Iraqi rebuilding effort.
Equally important, though, is that we learn our lesson from this war. If we don't, we will be doomed to repeat it again and again. Hopefully, there will be no more unilateral, unprovoked, preemptive invasions from us. Hopefully, we will recognize that we cannot force a people into the mold we want to stick them into. Hopefully, we will come to see exactly what we have done wrong here, and it will motivate us to have wiser foreign policy. Learning this lesson is vital, I believe - it's the sort of thing that might finally enable us to conceive of a strategy that could actually win the war on terror.
quote:Most countries are dictatorships. I don't want them to have any say over me so "international law" makes me shudder.
Fair enough - just remember that this also means we have no say over them too. Until we let Iraqis have a say over us, we cannot have a say over their governments - not rightly, at least. It's your choice - well, all of ours, actually.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I was asking what those men from Blackwater USA were doing in Fallujah, as well as why the supposed convoy they were guarding is unaccounted for as far as who and what, and I got an answer along the lines that the men were probably shopping for something or just out cruising. As of today, my original statements about the city being a warzone have been confirmed. Do my original questions about the reason those men were where they are still seem silly now? Once again, please note that I am not saying these men in any way deserved death or the disrespect their bodies received. I'm asking about what put them there to begin with, not the wrongfulness of their deaths.
Why were civilian contractors from this country in a known and volatile warzone? Guarding a food shipment, especially one that has not been accounted for, simply does not adequately answer the question.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" My plan would be to change this from a U.S. mission into a truly international mission..."
Isn't it already? Spanish, English, Australian, and Ukranian have all been listd in news articles. I think that many Americans believe that we are the only country who believed enough in this action to commit soldiers and resources to it. Or if you have a problem with the number of countries involved, how many countries does it take to make it international? just b/c Russia, Germany, and France aren't in, dosn't mean that much( or maybe most?) of the international community dosn't support this U.S. led action.
"... and give up all the power in Iraq that we stubbornly cling to as if we deserve it after beating Saddam. My plan would also be to turn over most of the decision-making to the Iraqis as soon as possible."
How's June 30th? We will be glad to hand over power, but to whom? We are responsible for the failure of the next Iraqi government if we hand it over to someone who canno maintain a stable government. Though I totally agree that it has to happen ASAP, June might be too soon if this current flair up of gangsters is not squelched by then. That might be the terrorist wishes b/c a new stable government would mean an end to their personal bid for power.
Argent - I read an article about the one of the contractors that I would link to for you but I can't find it again. Apparently his mother lives in the area that I was from originally, so our local paper wrote a story about him a couple of days ago. I caught it on the internet. He was ex-military and was working as a bodyguard for a firm that is contracted to do such work. This firm seeks out and employs ex-military types for this work. This explains his presence. As for whether they wre truly guarding food? Who can tell? But I will say that I find it significant that he was there b/c it was his job and he was being paid to do it. I am very sorry he lost his life, but it was his to risk.
quote:Isn't it already? Spanish, English, Australian, and Ukranian have all been listd in news articles. I think that many Americans believe that we are the only country who believed enough in this action to commit soldiers and resources to it.
I said "truly" an international mission, not an American mission with some other countries helping out. It will be international when it's no longer America (via Bremer and others) running the show, but rather individuals representing the global community at large.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might want to add in Poland, Italian, Japanese, Hungarian and other troops that are part of the plan.
And say a prayer for those Japanese journalists who were captured today. Their captors are vowing to set them on fire if Japanese troops don't pull out of the country in three days.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, we need to talk about what some of the "civilian contractors" actually are...
Mercenaries. Welcome to a new and murky world that has a lot, ethics-wise, with the days of Machiavelli.
Modern mercenaries haven't been in the news much since the revolts in the Congo and Angola back in the late 50s, early 60s when the Belgians and Portuguese used them extensively. The US used them in Vietnam -- from the entirety of Air America, to the Mungs and Montagnards to even multinationals hired to work for MACV-SOG.
Afghanistan's primary employment area has been the work of mercenaries for quite some time (hence all of the warlords -- you'd be amazed at how many loyalties were "bought" away from the Taliban before we went in). Our fighting there, and our hunting efforts, were many times done by mercenaries. Just remember that when you heard of CIA-contractors being harmed, that meant mercenaries (generally American), as CIA operatives would mean full CIA employees and staffers.
Now mix in Iraq and you're starting to see mention of companies like Blackwater (based in the Virginia area). In this case, they aren't necessarily working for the US government, but they are often hired by International aid groups to provide security and a high profile presence. That's what those fellows were doing there, providing muscle while they were on duty. What were they doing that day? My best guess is they were doing a bit of freelance bounty hunting to boost their incomes. The US still has bounties out on a number of Saddam's cronies, most of whom could be expected to be in that area around Fallujah. Then, they walked into something very, very dangerous.
You'd probably see more mercenaries elsewhere, if a person took the time to look. They help protect aid groups in Ethiopia/Eritrea, probably are working in Liberia, and most definitely were just nabbed in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia.. a hotbed of mercenary recruiting in the 60s and 70s) while they were up to something.
A number of mercenary companies are fairly high profile right now, including "security" corporations in South Africa and the Cayman Islands, in addition to the US. They recruit their employees from all over the world, particularly from countries like the US, Britain, South Africa, Thailand, Australia, Poland and Sweden where there are long-standing, quality military traditions.
For a really odd look at how they are used nowadays, take a pleasure cruise on any cruise liner of British registry. Each one will have a small group, about a dozen, of employees from Nepal, all male. Each of them will be registered as citizens of Guatemala and they will each have served in the British Ghurkha regiments. They aren't on ship as tourists.
But back to the subject, more and more governments involved in geo-politics are using mercenary groups to help out in sticky situations. The US seems to be doing this a bit, and it bothers me because their actions, even if hired by a US agency like the CIA, are always cloaked in a level of plausible deniability. It allows our government to work in the darker shades of gray now and then. I'm not sure that is always a good idea.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Group of Mercenaries travel into Falujah searching for someone on the $$ Bounty payroll as extra income.
The bountied individual has a lot of friends and influence in town.
They here about the merc searching for them, and bang, a crowd is bought and the mercs are killed. Then the crowd gets out of hand and, well we know the rest.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they are just mercenaries, not soldiers, so they don't affect our political situation. But then again, the American missionaries who were killed a week or so ago didn't raise any sort of outcry...
I'm thinking there's some political gain by sweeping under the rug any American deaths there that aren't soldiers. It's almost as if someone is saying, "Keep your eyes on the number of soldiers who have died.. that's it, pay attention to those numbers... tragic isn't it... nope, don't look over there, those other American deaths aren't important... look there went another soldier..."
What's going on? Or is it just me?
Some could argue that a "liberal" media knows that the American public will reach a point of turning away from the mission when enough soldiers have died and any other numbers tossed in will just distract us from reaching that critical mass of soldiers in caskets.
The other side, on the "conservative" part, could be argued to be keeping our attention on the soldiers to keep stirring patriotism and to keep it as clinical as possible... that the only ones dying there are the ones who have pledged their lives to do so...
posted
I think that whatever dubious reasons got us into Iraq, we must stay there. To pull out now would lead to a regional meltdown. Nation building is of course costly...and we as a nation can do it, I just don't think that this administration can do it. Or, if they can, didn't. I think they got their policies mixed up with Iraq. We knew that the opposition melted away into the general population. We were all worried about the battle for Bagdad that never really happened. Well...those people and weapons are still out there. Perhaps they see it as their time.
Maybe since the Coalition (mostly US) have said that we want to hand over power at the end of June, the thugs are stepping up the pressure to force us out and claim their own mini-kingdoms or Taliban-style theocracy...aka: warlords dressed as clerics. Like this crazy guy stirring up trouble in Iraq as we speak.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your comments, Sopwith, bring to mind a question that came up in a recent conversatioon of mine with a friend. Neither of us was alive during the Vietnam war but we wondered if a running tally of soldiers KIA was desplayed every night on the news networks then like it is today?
While I admit that it is news, in the numerical and statistical sense, I am left with a bad taste in my mouth when I see this eveyday. Why can't they just say "X number of soldiers were KIA today"? I feel like it is intended to say "See this the price of this war that we know many of you are mad about. And it keeps getting higher each day. Watch us tomorrow to see how high we tell you the number has gone."
And why do they focus on soldiers? Well we all support the soldiers. (unlike Vietnam) Sometimes I thinkk the only real thing that the American public learned from Vietnam was that while you might protest a war, spitting on soldiers is bad form. Supporting the soldiers is in or PC. I mean after all, they didn't start the war, so they are victoms just like the Iraqis. People sympathize (sp?) with them. Unlike mercs. and missionaries that CHOSE to go over there... Nevermind that soldiers are paid to honor there contract with the US government and are doing a job too.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
