Rebuilding Iraq II

A pdf of the complete Prevention of Genocide Act can be downloaded from a link on this page:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html

My understanding of the terms of the Act is that it imposed strict export controls on weapons technology to Iraq, cut off all loans and guarantees and forbade U.S. importation of Iraqi oil, all legitimate in my view.

Later sanctions were broadened to also put pressure on the Iraqi population in an attempt to drive Saddam from power.

I’m not qualified to address the issue whether Pilger is or isn’t consistent on the issue of sanctions as I don’t know much about him. What little I do know though makes me suspect he’s more an ideologue than a man of principle.

The significance of this is that when Saddam was at the height of his crimes against humanity the U.S. was fully cognizant of and complicit to a degree in his actions and any accurate history of events should include this.

Reasonably then, rather than calling for more heads to roll, this should be an opportunity for the current U.S. administration to learn a little humilty and truthfulness after an honest look at the true scope of the perfidy in Iraq.

So you think that the time to drive Saddam from power would be exactly at the peak of the Iran-Iraq War when for better or worse, Iran was deemed enemy No. 1 because it talked about “exporting the Islamic revolution” throughout the Middle East? I am sure that you and Carter must sleep well at night knowing that you are both well intentioned and righteous but in the meantime, I wonder what the practicable results of such a folly would have been? Quel idee! It was precisely this kind of thinking that allowed Iran to fall into the hands of the mullahs in the first place. Had this not occurred, there would have been no Iraq-Iran war, does Carter ever think of that? Do you?

The U.S. could have intervened militarily if Iran had invaded Iraq, as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The goal of the Prevention of Genocide Act was to prevent genocide, not drive Saddam from power. That twist came later with the ascent of the neoconservatives to power.

If you’re implying that Iraq’s use of chemical weapons was somehow justifiable and necessary in order to repel ‘enemy No. 1’ and keep Saddam in power then you’ve unwittingly adopted Saddam’s argument for their use.

I certainly would not say that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons was justifiable but… several points bother me.

Here, you are saying we should send in the troops if Iran invaded Iraq? What? Why are we always the world’s policeman? Why should our troops be killed when we can try to balance the situation in other ways if at all possible. Do you realize what would have been involved and how many American lives could have been lost?!! When I supported the Iraq war that was very different in my book (and we have had far fewer lives lost) than getting involved in a full-fledged war ala WWI. How in the name of all that is holy can you be so fllippant about sacrificing American lives?

Second, I am not sure that there was any way that the US could have stopped Saddam from using chemical weapons was there? I mean the sanctions would have weakened him in his fight against Iran. Not buying oil, etc. not selling weapons, etc. What were we to do? I don’t think that you have answered this sufficiently. Could we have stopped him from using these weapons by signing such an act? I sincerely doubt it and I imagine that the content of this act would have done nothing except weaken America’s already tenuous to nonexistent influence with Saddam while giving the Iranians the upper hand and scaring our Gulf allies to death. Remember, too, that much of American foreign policy is not about our individual choices and decisions. As the guarantor of peace and security in the Gulf, we often must rely and are obligated to do so by treaty with the opinions and consent of the various Gulf nations.

Finally, again, it is this blinkered “do gooder” approach that I sense you following that often results in these messes in the first place. What if Carter had been less concerned about “doing good” with human rights and had fully supported the Shah in Iran? You or at least many Leftists would have squealed about American amorality in coddling dictators but look what came AFTER? How many people did the Shah imprison, torture, etc. compared with what came afterwards? Would Saddam even have invaded if the Shah were there with full American support? And if there had been no Iran-Iraq War might not the other wars never have resulted either (Gulfs I and II) but then the “well intentioned” must certainly be congratulated for always adopting the high road no matter the consequences.

I suspect that the reason said Genocide Act did not pass has less to do with any lack of concern on the part of the Reagan administration for the victims of chemical weapons and more to do with the fact that there probably was very little we could do and he was damned sure not going to make it easier for Iran to take over the country and continue on down the Saudi peninsula as (don’t forget) so many of the mullahs were threatening to do.

All this well-intentioned rewriting of history is well just that “well-intentioned” it is just unfortunate that the other adage is not equally true and that all of you are punished for your good deeds but I have to say, that occasionally Ann Coulter puts it right when she claims that, “Being on the Left means never having to say you’re sorry.”

Do-gooder? No, I’m just one of those quaint, old-fashioned types who believes in practicing what he preaches.

Leftist? No, they’re as ‘expedient’ and ultimately unprincipled, if not more so, than right-wingers.

The real reason the Reagan administration killed the Genocide Act was because it was perfectly happy to watch Muslims slaughter Muslims, even at the expense of its own professed values.

It’s called ‘killing two birds with one stone.’ Man, did it seem like a crafty, wonderfully anti-do-gooder idea at the time. When it was no longer expedient, they simply crawled onto the pedestal of sanctimony and begin preaching how evil the use of chemical weapons was.

Not a problem in the land of The Ends Justify the Means.

This new argument that ‘there just wasn’t much we could really do to stop him from using chemical weapons’ is a new twist. My what a difference a few months makes.

You obviously haven’t been paying attention to all the movies, books, biographies and history lessons. Trying to be crafty and ‘morally relative’ rather than honorable just ends up getting you into a deeper hole.

You should be learning that lesson in Iraq right about now. Do you have any realistic timetable at all now for when you’ll be able to put your shovel down there and stop digging?

[quote]For those who think it is always wiser to put together an international panel of negotiators to try to talk foreign enemies into being nice, I present to you our Arab war.

The one 200 years ago. The one in which diplomacy failed miserably. The one in which Europe refused to help. The one we conducted alone. And won. The Barbary Wars.

Talk about forgetting the lessons of history. One of the first ones we learned 200 years ago was that “diplomacy” and “multilateralism” sometimes must end and direct action must begin. Back then, pirates from the North African states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli routinely plundered and seized our ships, demanded ransoms for captive crews or sold our sailors into slavery. European shipping routinely suffered the same fate.

Europe’s answer was “let’s negotiate,” which meant sitting down with some pasha and asking him how much money he wanted to leave them alone. Then forking over millions. Thomas Jefferson thought that approach ridiculous, inviting never-ending blackmail. As the American minister to France, he strongly urged a multinational alliance to “reduce the piratical states to peace.” Pick them off one at a time “through the medium of war,” so the others get the message, and they’ll give up their piracy too.

Some European powers were “favorably disposed,” as Jefferson said, to a joint operation. [color=red]But guess who had reservations? France. (No kidding, you can’t make up this stuff). France, because of its own interests, was suspected of secretly supporting the Barbary powers.[/color] So, the plan collapsed in favor of a policy of continued “negotiations” (read: appeasement)–meaning supplicating the blackmailers to tell us how much money they wanted for the ransom of ships and sailors and for annual tributes.

When Jefferson became president in 1801, he finally could do something about it himself. He simply refused Tripoli’s demand for a tribute. That provoked Tripoli to declare war on us, as if this young, upstart pup of a nation had any right to stand up for its principles. Jefferson’s response was a no-nonsense piece of clarity.

He sent a squadron of ships to blockade and bombard Tripoli. The results of these efforts were somewhat mixed. But on Feb. 16 of this year, we will celebrate the bicentennial of Lt. Stephen Decatur leading 74 volunteers into Tripoli harbor to burn the previously captured American frigate, The Philadelphia, so it could not be used for piracy.

It was considered one of the most heroic actions in U.S. naval history. The next year, Marines bravely stormed a harbor fortress, an act now commemorated in the “Marine Corps Hymn” with the words “… to the shores of Tripoli.” Eventually, Morocco, seeing what was in store for it, dropped out of the fight. And the threat of “regime change” in Tripoli led to a treaty of somewhat dubious benefits for the United States.

Demonstrating the need for perseverance and patience, a series of victories in 1815 by Commodores William Bainbridge and Decatur finally led to a treaty ending both piracy against us and tribute payments by us. We even extracted monetary compensation for property they seized from us. Meanwhile, Europeans, continuing their multilateral, diplomatic approach, kept paying and paying and paying.

Lessons? No, it doesn’t prove that diplomacy and international cooperation never work. But it demonstrates a principle: The United States, when confronted with weak resolve from the international community against enemies, sometimes needs to stand alone for what is right. And it sometimes works.

By coincidence, Tripoli today is the capital of Libya, whose leader Moammar Gadhafi, noticing the pounding that the United States gave to tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned his own weapons of mass destruction program. Perhaps Gadhafi, unlike some of our own blindly anti-war academics, commentators and politicians, has read history, especially as it happened in Libya.

One more footnote: [color=red]France finally settled the hash of the Barbary Coast states in 1830 when it simply went in and took over the place. The official provocation, according to France, was some sort of an insult to the French consul in Algiers. France, demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, remained there as a colonial power for a century. Unlike the United States, which, wanting only to protect its citizens and its ships, got out when it won.[/color]

chicagotribune.com/news/opin … entary-hed[/quote]

Also by Thomas Jefferson:
“Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war.”

It would be interesting to hear what Thomas Jefferson would have to say today about the invasion of Iraq.

There was no question that the pirates of the Barbary Coast were attacking and seizing U.S. ships and sailors, just as no debate was needed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Both were matters of plain fact. Suppressing the pirates of North Africa and driving Saddam out of Kuwait without further ado were the orders of the day.

So a better historical precedent may instead be those many “provocations” to war where the “facts” were debatable and exaggerated at best, if not outright manufactured, in order to serve a preordained intention to invade.

This all-too-familiar sounding chain of events from WWII, for example:
"The newspapers were now filled with stories of Polish atrocities against Germans living in Poland and Danzig. In screaming headlines, the 12- Uhr Blatt accused the Poles of firing on three unarmed German passenger airplanes, and of torching German farmhouses in the Polish Corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany. The Berliner Zeitung, which had stood up against Bismarck so bravely back in the 1870s, loyally played its part: GERMAN FAMILIES FLEE, it proclaimed, accusing the Poles of massing troops on the German border. The Nazi Party’s own V

Spook:

Enough with the Bush=Hitler hysteria. Hyperbole never wins an argument and I would characterize the German-generated hysteria over Poland less with the US invasion of Iraq than with the Leftist screaming about how the bill of rights is under attack and how innocent people are losing their rights “each and every day” WHILE WE SPEAK!!! This administration is the blah blah blah.

Iraq invaded two countries and had a history of Barbary Pirate like actions. I am sure that Jefferson was never obligated to prove that the threat was worth dealing with by coming up with a specific incident in the month prior to the action. The problem like Saddam had been long term and it like he was finally dealt with and the world became a better place.

Interesting thing the Barbary Pirates. Wonder how that will gel with the new historical revisionism wherein the Muslim civilization was far advanced of the West and who are we to judge etc. etc. etc.

Interesting also that the French were so true to form and then went in and colonized the place. I imagine given the chance and strength they would have done the same with Iraq. That said, I for one am quite sure that the US will be more than happy to leave when the time is right and that we have no intention of taking over Iraq. According to plan, (almost) we are down to 110K troops rather than 90K. Of course, we failed to get 10K Turkish and 10K Pakistani so that is why this plan is off, but I think that we will see in 1.25 years, a drop to 50K and that is probably where it will remain for years and years and years ala Germany, Japan and South Korea. Everyone knew this prior to the invasion (that our military commitment would be long-term and ongoing). Time to shift the troops out of Germany though and into Poland, Romania and Bulgaria and perhaps even Georgia? Armenia? Azerbaidzhan?

Fred,

My main man, by all means there should be a moratorium on the Bush=Hitler hyperbole. I’d go a step further and suggest there should be a stand-down from all ______=Hitler hyperbole.

Saddam=Hitler, for example. I think the facts show rather that Saddam was a regional thug on the order of say, Saddam=Dostum or Saddam=Kim Jong Il
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1563344.stm

The point I was trying to make was simply that Bush≠Thomas Jefferson. If Jefferson had invaded and occupied North Africa and engaged in wholesale regime change there – all facilitated by a very un-Jeffersonian barrage of propaganda to gain the American public’s support – then maybe a valid comparison could be made.

To me, Bush=Lyndon Johnson. That’s about it. Both of them busted the national budget to engage in questionable foreign wars that came to – or are destined to come to – naught. Both of them somehow believed that you can serve two masters (the U.S. and Israel). Both of them were tough-talking good old boys from Texas who looked at the world through the prism of Southern Baptism fundamentalism.

Spook:

I think that the Vietnam comparisons with Iraq are also off base and would therefore question the Johnson comparion. Given that what Bush has done is to dramatically and radically redraw the tenets of our foreign policy, I would prefer that you use Nixon as an example. Think detente with the Soviets and opening to China. What we have done is equally revolutionary though I think it will fail to be appreciated in the here and now. When the ongoing tidal wave that has hit the Middle East washes away, I think that the results will be positive, because what is being swept away ain’t worth saving and would make subSaharan Africa cry with shame.

I mention this because I believe your point is to show Bush’s Iraq policy is disastrous and will get us involved in a QUAGMIRE (said while screaming and pulling hair preferably). Yet, the number of troops is not gradually escalating but started with 300K in the region and is now down to 110K in Iraq. We have far greater support from our allies than might be initially assumed if the primary focus is always on Germany and France.

Second, while I do not believe that bin Laden has much influence in Iraq some of these mindless terrorists are heading there and I say much better there than Taiwan or America. Sorry but call it the flystrip if you want. Let’s fight this where our army is rather than where our civilians are.

Third, the true perpetrators in all the ongoing violence are Syria, Saudi elements and Iran. These are the three that are funding and agitating various sources in Iraq, but for now, I really do not see the US invading anyone else. Let the Iranian populace rise up against their evil masters (get the evil part?) and let the Saudis continue to fight this out amongst themselves while we stand by with carrots and sticks and then let us come up with a plan to deal with the Syrians in a military fashion if need be but there is the one regime that I would most heartily encourage further military and covert action against. Call my bloodthirst not quite sated if we must look at it in those terms but the overall results will be positive. Trust me on that or my name ain’t Frederick P. Smith V. (bit of a joke here about the name and trusting thing) but the sentiments are real as I believe you will have little doubt.

I don’t subscribe to the Vietnam/Iraq comparisons. The NVA and VC were warriors. Arabs are clerks. Give a clerk a bomb and a bad attitude though and they can do a lot of damage too. It’s not a war but it can drag on and be just as bloody and a lot more inconclusive.

Libya relinguishing weapons of mass destruction programs is a positive result of Bush’s aggressive foreign policy and has created some momentum for stabilization. It’s given me some hope I’m wrong in my assessment of the fundamentals in the Middle East and Bush and his crew really can impose a Pax Americana on a very complicated and distorted region.

Nothing would make me happier than seeing democracy, stability, traditional American-style justice prevailing in the Middle East.

It would even be worth the price of having to say: “Fred Smith, I’ll be damned if you weren’t right all along.”

Spook:

Wait just a bit longer before congratulating Fred Smith et al. This is going to be a monumental task. Hell, if after World War II, we could not even impose democracy and civilization on the French…

This is just one small plank in the overall mess. The question is the direction that mess is moving in. And I think for the first time since 1974, it is moving in our direction as in a positive direction for us. And if it is moving in a positive direction for us, then that will be good for democracy, human rights, women, children, minorities, gays, other religions, the economy, etc.

One key area to indicate progress that you should be watching rather than Libya is Saudi Arabia which is the key to the whole mindset that has been behind the very problem. This is where I see the most progress but also the most danger. This is far from won. Now that Libya and Sudan seem to be off the charts, that leaves Syria, Iran and some would argue Saudi Arabia. I think right now Syria deserves a lot more attention. There is much less that we can practicably do about Iran.

Finally, none of these states is my major concern. Which one? PAKISTAN. It has nukes. It has supplied the technology to many bad regimes. It is really only on our side because of a few people at the top. Take them out and we have Talibanistan with 150 million people, nukes and there is no way the US can “take out” something like that. This is the country that keeps me awake at night and unfortunately, I don’t see it as getting any better with the potential to get A LOT worse.

Let’s see 1974 Oil Embargo to 2001 World Trade Center bombing… an endless string of hopeless futile efforts at Middle Eastern diplomacy. Three years - really two since 911- of Bush and…
according to the Christian Science monitor

JERUSALEM

"Imagine that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had made a case for the invasion of Iraq along the following lines: "Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who has long oppressed the Iraqi people and threatened Iraq’s neighbors. It is U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq, and we propose to do that now, by military force. Saddam does not pose a risk to the United States now, and any threat he eventually may pose is years or decades away. His programs for developing weapons of mass destruction have been dormant since the end of the Gulf War. We have no evidence of links between Saddam and the terrorists of Al-Qaida or other groups capable of attacking the United States. Any invasion of Iraq is not related to the war on terrorism.

“Nevertheless, removing Saddam and creating a free, democratic Iraq is a worthy goal, though it will not come cheap. It will cost tens upon tens of billions of dollars raised from American taxpayers. International assistance will be minimal. Hundreds of fine young Americans will be killed in the process, and thousands will suffer debilitating wounds that will alter their lives forever. We call upon the American people to willingly shoulder those costs in the name of a free Iraq.”

That, of course, isn’t the case Bush and Powell made. The American people would have rejected it, and properly so."

http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=4315251

spook,

Had FDR not steered us into a war with Japan, how would he have sold WW2 to the American people? And would the American people have bought it?

For the record, nobody believed that Saddam’s WMD were decades away. Even now, it is believed that if left alone, he could reconstitute his production facilities and have some stuff pretty soon… not the decades away as per your post above.

I agree. But then again, as the article itself stated:

so, err… triffic.

Current debate seems to take it for granted that WMD was the only reason for the invasion of Iraq. This is not so. A look at the old pre-war debates on this forum will show you that the discussion was not solely about the existence of WMD.

Now to the straw man that the article set up:

Fair enough. This is more or less what was involved in the “Wolfowitz letter” to Clinton.

So, how imminent is imminent? If one thinks it is years away, how long does one wait? Or does the article believe one must wait until attacked - until its too late?

But there is another point - the US is seen as a protector not just of US territory but of a set of values. That is the reason for its involvement in Bosnia, Ethiopia, etc. It may not always have been right, but the article wrong to imply that the US only acts out of a threat to its own territory. Thus, it misses a big point.

The article assumes that no links to al qaeda means no links to terrorism. But that is not the case. saddam has supported palestinian terrorism against Israel, not least by offering 25,000 to the familes of any suicide bomber.

This last bit is closer to the truth. Its hardly a rousing call, though.

I think we elect leaders to make tough decisions on our behalf, where we lack the resolve. i think, also, that professional soldiers realise the risks they face.

I note, also, that US opinion polls are largely in favour of Bush’s decision.

Regardless of what you feel about the war (I personally have a lot of concerns about the WMD spinning, too) I think that it is fair to say that Bush took a tough decision, one which the US population as a whole may not have had the resolve to take at the time, but which has thier support currently.

The article’s attempt to portray what would have been an “honest” case for war, fails to do so. because it misses out some obvious points.

nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment, which as I see it is: “Wouldn’t it be nice if leaders could put the honest case for war before us and let us decide?” Nice, but unrealistic.

Why?

Personally, i spend too much time wondering where i am going to go for my next meat pie and chips to focus my attentions on war with iraq. That’s why we have administrations to do the heavy thinking and then give us the “guts” of their conclusions. There are always plenty of people to shout them down and make a good argument.

This article though was not a good argument.

Also, I have seen Neoconservative plans to remake the Middle East for the better part of six years. They were available at think tanks almost from the beginning of the First Gulf War. The plans were there the whole time. I read articles in Time, Newsweek, NY Times, NY Post, Washington Post, Washington Times, the Atlantic, Salon, New Republic, New Stateman, the Nation, LA Times, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Le Figaro, Le Monde and especially Le Monde Diplomatique, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Economist, on CNN and Fox News as well as the BBC about guess what? The Neoconservative plan to remake the Middle East. What was involved? Taking out Iraq as the first step and to ensure that he never developed wmds to the point where he would be untouchable ala North Korea. This was reported on over and over and over again. While the wmds were the key concern of most reporters, there were numerous other articles on the OTHER reasons and many neoconservatives argued that the case for removing him did not require specific action against ONLY wmds. This is the argument that I bought into and for the record, I would support further action against Syria, Iran and intervention in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia if necessary. So people please remember that none of this information has ever been secret or hidden, various think tanks have been demanding the above actions and it has been reported on extensively for the better part of a decade. That is 10 years. So who thought it was only about wmds, raise your hand. No, not you Rascal, we already know how you feel. haha

[quote]The latest document to surface is a Corps of Engineers memo to DCAA last week called a “business case” justifying the fuel costs. Halliburton charged the Army more than double the cost for fuel it trucked into Iraq from Kuwait than for fuel it bought in Turkey.

Halliburton has claimed that Altanmia was the only company approved by the Kuwaiti government to sell fuel in Iraq.

But the Corps of Engineers document doesn’t say that. It says Altanmia had to get Kuwaiti government approval for its sales to Halliburton because it had never sold fuel before. The Army document does not mention any demand by Kuwait that only Altanmia could be used as a supplier. [/quote]

never sold fuel before… does this raise any suspicions?

"Hussein’s brutal regime was not an adequate justification for war, and the administration did not seriously try to make it one until long after the war began and all the false justifications began to fall apart. There was no imminent threat. Hussein had no nuclear weapons, no arsenals of chemical or biological weapons, no connection to Sept. 11 and no plausible link to al Qaeda. We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence.

Vast resources have been spent on the war that should have been spent on priorities at home. Our forces are stretched thin. Precious lives have been lost. The war has made America more hated in the world and made the war on terrorism harder to win. As Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in announcing the latest higher alert: “Al Qaeda’s continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th.”

The most fundamental decision a president ever makes is the decision to go to war. President Bush violated the trust that must exist between government and the people. If Congress and the American people had known the truth, America would never have gone to war in Iraq. No president who does that to our country deserves to be reelected."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23717-2004Jan16.html

Blah Blah Blah

We know now that Sadam will never be a threat so that is taken care of. Let’s see, finally hit the 500 total dead level. Never in the history of modern warfare have so few been killed accomplishing so much. Finally, the world hated us before Bush, remember Hubert Vedrine during Clinton and hyperpuissance? And since when should a nation’s foreign policy be based on making people like one?

Get over it. We won big time and the world is better off for it. And so much for the Arab Street rising up.