Lost In Translation

 

It's the third anniversary of the coalition invasion of Iraq. The elected Iraqi parliament has held its first session, but is prevented from going much farther by factionalism. Iraqis are not keen on compromise, and dictatorship came to Iraq half a century ago when the generals decided to silence the squabbling and take over themselves. Iraqis wonder if they can avoid repeating past mistakes like this. The Shia Arab majority is split in several large, and many smaller, parties, that resist cooperating. The Kurds have two major factions, that are currently tolerating a truce, and dealing with growing popular unrest at the corruption at the faction (clan, actually) leadership.

The Sunni Arabs, who are now the oppressed minority, have always been the most willing group to unite and take charge. But no more. There are many factions. Some are religious extremists, some are secular (like the Baath Party Saddam ran), while others are tribal. One of the factions is al Qaeda, which is basically a group of Sunni Arab Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda is not happy that all Iraqi Sunni Arabs have not supported them. This has degenerated into war between al Qaeda and most Iraqi Sunni Arabs. But many of these same Sunni Arab factions are still hostile to the Shia Arab dominated government.

Most Iraqis understand that a clean, cohesive government is the key to future peace and prosperity. But the cooperation and compromise required to make this all happen has so far eluded Iraqis. American and European diplomats and advisors constantly hover about with suggestions and advice. The key to peace in Iraq is not a military problem, the terrorists and Sunni Arab rebels are beaten. The key to peace is political, and the ability of Iraqi factions to work together. Iraqis have paid a lot of attention to Lebanon, looking for answers. Lebanon is split by religious factions (about one third Shia, one third Sunni and one third Christian). Lebanon went through a 15 year civil war (1975-90), and since making peace, the country has prospered (without oil, just the skills of the people), despite interference from Syria. The Lebanese example gives hope, but the payoff is in the performance. The Iraqi politicians have to perform. In the next few months, we'll see if they can.

The perceived attitudes in the U.S. on the war in Iraq, have more to do with Bush hatred than with realities on the ground, among a lot of people on both left and right. As Bush's popularity seems to diminish in the eyes of poll gazers-- largely for non-war reasons -- it has pushed the war's popularity down with it.

I was listening to Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on the BBC earlier, saying that recent sectarian violence is a sure sign of a nation at war with itself. "We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he said.

Although conditions have not passed the "point of no return," he said, if that point is reached, fragile efforts to build a new government "will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the U.S. will not be spared the violence that results."

In recent months, killings apparently based on the victims' religion have fueled fears of civil war. Attacks on Sunnis and Shiites have sparked reprisal killings, and after the February 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine, violence seemed to escalate.

The Bush administration says Iraq is not in a civil war, but that terrorists are desperate to foster one, desperate to foment a civil war which would conveniently propel them into the spotlight.

Lawmakers have also argued the point. The debate carries political significance in both nations, as Iraqi officials work to build a permanent government and President Bush's approval rating is supposedly at a record low. If you repeat something enough times, it suddenly becomes the truth.

A former Iraqi exile, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi who was instrumental in building the U.S. case during lead-up to the war, and who later fell out of favor with the Administration amid what turned out to be false intelligence, rejected Allawi's assessment: "There is no civil war here," 

In reality, you can't trust either word, as both are members of the Iraqi parliament, and their public remarks are often viewed as positioning for power in the new Cabinet.

Wretchard @ The Belmont Club:

The British Defense Minister says that Allawi had said something rather different to him just shortly before his BBC interview.

While visiting British troops in Iraq on Sunday, Defense Secretary John Reid said Allawi's remarks to the BBC contradicted what the former prime minister told him during a Saturday meeting.

"Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there's an increase in the sectarian killing, but there's not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop," Reid said.

Wretchard goes on to say in what I think is an important must read article:

Politically what's interesting is how the narrative has changed. Nobody is talking about the Sunni insurgency succeeding any more. Even the press hardly makes the claim of an insurgency on the brink of success. As late as November 2005, the Daily Kos was boasting: "The occupation is exacerbating terrorism in the country. America is losing, the insurgency is winning. Maybe we should say, 'has won.'" But by the December 2005 elections this view could no longer be held by anyone with the slightest regard for the facts. Juan Cole said:

The guerrillas are really no more than mosquitoes to US forces. The casualties they have inflicted on the US military, of over 2000 dead and some 15,000 wounded, are deeply regrettable and no one should make light of them. But this level of insurgency could never defeat the US military in the field.

[...] Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too.

Dr. Sanity has more.

Obviously there is some sectarian violence because of the tensions that have been built up under both the CPA [U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority] and the interim government, which was headed by Allawi, and there is the perpetual blame of the U.S. military for exacerbating tensions through operations in Falluja and Najaf, where pitched battles took place between the U.S. forces and insurgents in late 2004. The consequences of the frustration of the sectarian tensions, as with others is as usual dumped squarely in our lap.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who has long differed with the President over the war is no doubt breathless to put another nail in the President’s coffin, and would like to see the Bush Administration acknowledge that Iraq has reached the point of civil war. By calling it “low grade” the Senator seems to think it will pass the scrutiny radar of it’s true definition.

But everyone seems to have missed the most important issue here. Until you can pinpoint who is actually doing the killing, you cannot call it a civil war. And if you have a small group of killers inciting violence, then they are terrorists, like they were in Ireland, and that certainly does not classify as civil war. It doesn't matter if they dress up in official uniforms, stolen from God knows where.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile has been getting flack for his statement in Sunday's Washington Post: "turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis." Instead of fixating on the historical accuracy of the analogy, focus on the reality that we can not leave now. We can not allow the same mistakes made countless times in the past.

But I digress, I want to thank the U.S. troops for their heroic service during the past three years, instead of bitching about a supposed "low grade" civil war instigated by a bunch of terrorists.

My friend Rick aka The Ugly American has the right attitude:

If there is one good thing to come from the islamofascists attacks on 9/11; it has made us realize we can no longer ignore the Middle East.

To my friend Treasure of Baghdad [don't miss this moving post], I can only offer hope for the future and these words of solidarity and encouragement as I know more people he cares about will suffer and die before this war is over.

We are not ignoring you any longer my friend. Please do not push away the people who desperately want to help you. People I care about will also suffer and die. No doubt more sacrifice will be required of you, please do not forget that others are sacrificing for you as well. I know this has not always been the case but today Americans, Italians, Poles, British, Australians, and others, are dying for your freedom. This is the opportunity of your lifetime. To live free to live in peace. Do not waste it.

I am about to watch the President's speech in Cleveland, and try out my new CNN Pipeline Webplayer. Transcript published here.

UPDATE I: Siggy has another excellent not to be missed post:

Few on the left will care about what will become the lot of the Iraqis. They didn't care before as Saddam was butchering hundreds of thousands. They didn't care as when Saddam's rape rooms were working at full capacity. Clearly, there is no reason to believe they will care about the Iraqis in the future. No doubt they will be celebrating the 'defeat' to America. They do not realize they America will not lose anything- our freedoms are assured. The loss they will celebrate is the loss of freedom- and of a future- for so many denied, for so many decades. It is this hypocrisy of many on the left that still causes the revulsion, to this day, of people who lived under communist regimes. The idea of a free exchange of thoughts and ideas is anathema to the left- unless those exchanges and opinions concur with their own.

In the end, freedom will transform the Middle East as it did Eastern Europe. Nothing great is easy, and establishing democracy in Iraq is a challenge. We have also said, democracy is built on the blood of patriots. Like Lafayette and Kosciusko that came to the aid of the patriots that built our country, we are coming to the aid of the Iraqi patriots that are paying for their freedom every day, in blood.

When that freedom comes, the left will be nowhere to be found. They will abandon the Middle East in the same way they left Eastern Europe. Arabs, like Eastern Europeans, will choose freedom, if given the chance.

UPDATE II: From Newsweek "The Human Toll" - An interactive map of Coalition military fatalities and estimated Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq, 2003-2006.

An important post from Iraq The Model "Was it the right decision to remove Saddam?"

Comments

[weekenderman]

I'd like to know where David gets the idea the United States economy has tanked. I've seen absolutely no evidence of that claim, but I guess that's because I actually live in the U.S. and therefore have firsthand knowledge!

[DavidByron]

One would expect the absolute moral condemnation of those who went to war.

[Washington]

War. Casualties. Not to sound rude but what does one expect?

[DavidByron]

I'm not aware of any other studies. Yes I base me figures on the facts in that study. What do you base your ..... "opinion" on?

The 100,000 figure in the Lancet wasn't an estimate of the number of casualties. It was an estimate of the number of casualties in excess of the death toll during the embargo of the 90's (a rate of death describes as "genocidal" a in its own right). Also it didn't consider the figures for Falloojeh which I have included. Also of course the Lancet figures are out of date since people didn't stop dying after they published.

More people have died in Iraq than the Darfur genocide over the same period of time.

So once again what fantasy does your number derive from?

[Darrell]

No he hasn't.
But I used Dr. Leftie Jerkov's methodology at Lancet to come up with my 1 trillion estimate for Stalin. I asked hundreds of people in the former Soviet Union if there was anyone that used to live around you who no longer does. Then I extrapolated that data to the broader population. Voila!

And, aren't you guys(the Left) still throwing around the original Lancet number of 100,000? What, you decided to multiply that by the magic number 5? David, if you were Pinocchio, poor Gepetto would have to schedule a rhinoplasty on the hour. The real figure is on the order of 25,000-30,000. But what's an order of magnitude or more when you have a point to make.

[DavidByron]

Yes, Bush has killed about half a million Iraqis.

[Darrell]

"killing half a million people"

David, with those kind of "facts," who can ever debate you? Heck, even the "trillion"(10**12)people Stalin killed are probably deciding that they're in a better place now--one far away from you! Gotta go now. My internet connection costs a $1000/sec.

[Raimondo]

I'll cite the example of Italy, since I am very familiar with it...In Italy up until quite recently admitting to sharing Conservative views was like shooting oneself in the foot if one had political or cultural aspirations.

Simple everyday things you take for granted here in the US, like a part time job, until recently were considered illegal, because if you were employed it had to be full time, with union membership...It was, and in many cases still is not uncommon for Italians not to have their first job until well in their twenties or thirties...It's also not uncommon for Italians not to move out of their parents' house until they are well in their thirties or forties. These realities aren't practiced for quaint cultural reasons as the American "It Takes a Village Left"would like you to believe, instead these types of oppressive realities are the direct result of decades of despotic anti free market policies practiced by the majority Left wing rulers of Italy.

I had the priviledge of leaving and making something of myself here, of accumulating work experience, property and above all self respect. All of that was not completely denied in Europe, but it would have come at a very high cost...Luckily, thanks in part also to bloggers who plug away at their revolution ceaselessly, things are beginning to change. Italy has some of the most pro-capitalist labor laws in Europe, yet they are still light years behind the US. If it was not for alternative media such as blogs, I think nobody would have ever even questioned the Left run print media monolith in Italy and many other places like it. In spite of the fact that Italy has had a pro-free market prime minister and pro-war in Iraq staunch US ally, the left still fiercely dominates Italian politics...ultimately making victims out of those it claims to support. I.e. The poor, the small to medium size entrepreneurs, the immigrant population, and the average consumer and worker.

Things are changing...Alternative views are being taken more seriously. Because we are becoming a force to be reconed with. Both here in the US and worldwide. Every day brave independently minded individuals file away at those Left Wing leg irons Big Brother has imposed upon them.

[Washington]

Mr. Byron:

Do you reside in the United States? If not on what basis do you make the claim that this country is more divided since the civil war? That is a rather strong claim to make if you are not living here...if you are basing your views on what you read or watch.

The country was more divided in the 1960's. I grant you that there are divisions, especially among political partisans, but hardly the divisions we saw in the 60's.

[Raimondo]

I hold dual citizenship and travel a lot internationally. I admit to being both a post 9-11 citizen and a post 9-11 Conservative. Never have I been more proud to be an American, and I meet people all over Europe who are for the war in Iraq and completelly pro Bush. So this notion that Europeans and Middle Easterners all think in unison and all hate our guts is pure propaganda in it's simplest form.

People who have to struggle, who run businesses and work for a living are fairly quiet but understand that the old Socialist bureaucarcies have to be dismantled. The "intelligensia" the old party hacks, the retrograde establisment that lives off off the working person's back...are the ones resisting...and the ones making all the noise.

The monolithic left with its oppressive retrograde mindset and dubious alliances are the true "Fascists"....I applaud all the grassroots people with common sense in Europe and elsewhere who are willing to stand up for their rights.

Keep up the good fight!

[DavidByron]

Wow. Again so much stuff that sems 100% wrong there. It's amazing how little facts we can agree upon.

I don't think Bush is stupid exactly. He just doesn't care about governing. He only cares about appearances and spin and politics. I disagree 100% that he's not good at marketing. That's all he does. He lives in a potemkin fantasy bubble. He surrounds himself with unqualified yes-men (or women in the case of Myers). And he's transformed Republicans from hard-nosed realists into a bunch of drug-dazed true believers.

He hasn't put terrorists on the run -- he's massively increased terrorism. He hasn't made conservatives acceptable. They used to be acceptable and now they are a joke. Worldwide Bush is seen as insane - as Caligula. Americans who support him are seen as idiots. Other Americans feel they have to apologise all the time for their idiot neighbours who voted for Bush. People are pretending to be Canadians when they go abroad. Many world leaders ran for re-election mainly based on being anti-American or anti-Bush. That includes the whole of South America and much of Europe as well as muslim countries.

And you think he's "facilitated true dialogue"? Are you on crack? The country hasn't been this divided since the Civil War. Mr "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is facilitating dialogue? This guy calls dissent treason.

You think Bush helped the Republican grassroots? You do know he's at 33% approval, right? And Cheney is at 18%. Generic match up Democrat vs Republican hasn't favoured the Democrats this much in decades. Bush took the well oiled political machine that others had built in the 80's and 90's and he broke it. He's totally screwed you politically. Of course the spend spend spend Republican congress that is so corrupt doesn't help either.

In fact the more I think about it the more I like Bush. If it weren't for the killing half a million people, the collapse of the economy and the danger of fascism.

[Darrell]

David, Why don't you get your own blog? That way anyone who wants to read what you have to say can go there and visit. Do you know how much bandwidth you are taking up? Even a Leftist should realize that he has to pay his way in this world. Have you NO shame? I know you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose. Get out you little metric ruler and try to keep the combined total of your comments on any one topic below 12 cm.

The MSM and the Left was talking about the "quagmire" before we reached Bagdhad. Why should we pay any attention to them? They might as well resort to their old tried and true revisionism. Start saying that we are three years into a Civil War in Iraq. The Dems can repeat the shame of the US Civil War where they were wrong all the time there too. Quite the legacy.

[Raimondo]

President Bush may not be "the sharpest knife in the drawer"...There are inonsitencies, and there have been errors made. I think most people are aware of the fact that he is not the greatest at advertising his own successes and that his oratory skills are non existent. However to brand him American Caligula is pure fantasy...He has broken the mold as far as world politics go. He has put the Middle East on guard. He has put terrorists on the run and he has spearheaded a cultural change in the US and worldwide that makes it so that a person with conservative views is no longer considered a pariah. I think his presence in the White House has facilitated true dialogue in this country, we are finally not afraid to think that the NY Times or Boston Globe aren't the voice of GOD...He broke with the Status Quo and helped speahead a grassroots Conservative revolution that is resonating worldwide...With all his flaws, I still think he's a far more daring thinker and revolutionary than the old left establishment...I like GW and I like the few European friends he has, far more than the masses of "leaders" who hide behind their old oppressive Marxist ideals!

[Liquid]

David, are you really DaveDAILYKIOSByron?
*wink*

[DavidByron]

I'm not talking about mistakes. Most Republicans still believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 for example. Alexandra still believes Iraq had WMDs.

President Bush seems proud that he managed to con his useful idiots. He seems proud that he managed to associate "Saddam" and "9-11" often enough to convince the people who trusted him into believing his 'catapulted' propaganda, while at the same time saying there was no link and no WMDs whenever any reporter (very rarely) flat out asked him to confirm the two lies he was insinuating constantly.

Bush:
I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

Yeah. He was very careful. Like Clinton was very careful not to say he didn't get a blow job, just that he didn't have "sexual relations". So Clinton never lied and Bush never lied, right?

The Republican party is facing, and in fact has already failed a huge test of credibility and accountability. They put themselves on the line for Bush and he used them like a whore. It was all about loyalty instead of facts but unfortunately all the loyalty went one way. Useful idiots.

Olbermann apparently quoted how close Bush came to the lie he so carefully avoided:

Bush [from SOTU]: Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists... including members of al Qaeda.... Before September the 11th many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

Olbermann asks, "who does the President think he's f'n kidding?". Or as Bush puts it, "Fool me once shame on me". Well it seems that Bush knows exactly who he is kidding. Conservatives used to pride themselves on a tough minded lack of naivety. Now they are all bending over backwards to believe in fairytales.

[Washington]

I cannot address Mr. Byron directly. However, in a general sense, he seems to be hinting that no one here will admit that mistakes in Iraq have occured. (Actually he wants someone to admit that Iraq was a mistake) Mistakes have occured, both in planning and tactics. The President is responsible for the conduct of the war-no one else. The buck stops with The National Command Authority.

However, it is not wise to admit mistakes have been made during the course of a war. Once the war has concluded then he will likely state something to the effect that the war was not perfect - they rarely are. Four years of postgraduate study on military history have confirmed for me, and countless others, that war is never as bad, nor as good, as people make it out to be with respect to tactics, etc.

Cheers,

[chrys]

The mixture of links, in-depth opinion and writing equals a wondrous post. Thanks

[Jeff Durkin]

Just a few martini fueled points to make.

First, Iraq has been fighting a civil war since at least the early 1980s. Saddam wasn't gassing the Kurds for fun...well, okay, that may have been one reason he was gassing the Kurds...but the idea that civil strife is somehow new to Iraq is an ahistorical notion. Their is a case to be made that Iraq has been fighting a civil war since the Mandate Period, with a number of "breaks" sprinkled across the 20th century.

Second, it really doesn't matter: defeat in Iraq - which, unfortunately, is currently defined as a non-unitary Iraqi state - is unacceptable. If the Iraqis (or some proportion of them) are unwilling to conform to our idea of an orderly world, than we need to do what is necessary to change their minds. This may include killing lots and lots of people; such is the price of empire. I personally like my standard of living and, more importantly, think that the global system we are building could lead to a prosperous and safe future for generations of people yet to be born. To allow that grand project to be hampered by people obsessed with some obscure tribal or sectarian differences is insane.

Third, I started reading the back and forth on Saddam, but became rapidly bored. Or, perhaps, I just needed another drink. Whatever. The point is, it doesn't if he was our butt-monkey, a pain in the ass, a regional threat, a force for secular stability, etc. We crushed his government, destroyed his security apparatus, and changed the balance of regional power. At the moment, that fact is more important than debates about why we did it. Future historians can argue about the merits of the 1990 - 2003 war (what else would you call the period from the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the long interregnum and the liberation/invasion?). We are faced with cleaning up the mess, a task that, if we really want to see Iraq emerge from 30 years of oppression and war as a stable state (or states), will take decades.

The Administration appears to have a) greatly underestimated the task they were setting for America or b) realize just what an actual plan to stabilize Iraq (or a couple of Iraqi successor states) would require, but are afraid the American people would balk at being told their sons and daughters will be fighting for another decade or so (I base this on the amount of time it took us to pacify the Philippines [generally accepted as 1899 - 1902, but with fighting going on in some areas for another ten years], Haiti [occupied from 1915-1934] and the British experience in Malaya [1948 - 1960]; I'm certain other people have their own pet COINS operations) and we'll be spending tens of billions of dollars on reconstruction aid.

Of course, I don't see the loyal opposition as having any policy except "run away."

While I think the President is far too optimistic about the success of his policies, he is right that we cannot afford to lose. Hopefully, someone in the Administration or DoD will come up with a way to actually win.

[DavidByron]

NNW: it's hard to reply to everything you said but I'll try.

I did not see Saddam as a threat to the region. I believe this view has been born out and those who claimed Saddam was a threat have been humiliated -- or ought to feel humiliated. I don't know if you read any of the various diaries around the blogosphere (eg at Glenn Greenwald's place) recalling the embarassing predictions from the Right prior to the war? This all adds up to a huge credibility issue for the Right. But the biggest issue of credibility loss for the Right is that they simply can't admit they were dead wrong. It's reminiscent of Bush's own failure to admit mistakes. It's a shameful lack of accountability.

Now I don't know what you were saying three years ago about Iraq but I was predicting Iraq had no WMDs and was 100% accurate in my predictions. Common sense says the people who have a record of being correct are the ones to trust for the future.

Saddam was a threat in the 80's of course - when he was an ally of the Republicans. He was no threat in 2003. He couldn't even threaten the Kurds who were essentially independent within Iraq itself, let alone his neighbours. To the extent Iraq was a threat to regional peace it was because it had no defences and was wide open to an attack from say Iran. Bush created a huge regional threat by invading - the threat of the conflict spreading to other countries, as well as the training ground for terrorists. How long before we see the innovations of the Iraqi resistance appearing elsewhere? All this was well understood by Republicans in Bush's father's administration.

All these observations seem uncontroversial and yet you insist that Saddam was a threat as if this was three years ago and you didn't know better (and I knew better even then). I don't know how to react to this. You appear to be championing a view that has absolutely no basis in fact. Are you impervious to logic? Why do you pretend that Saddam's threat in the 80's when he was being armed by America and shaking Rumsfeld's hand, means he was a threat in 2003 after his army was destroyed and 13 years of sanctions?

What you also seem to reject outright, is that Americans, both left and right, genuinely feel strongly about people being oppressed by dictatorial regimes and their willingness to help if they can.

I'm not sure what you are getting at; as you say this hypothetical attitude has no effect at all on actual US foreign policy.

In Europe, people are much more cynical and in many ways much less 'romantic' in sentiment, you could say indifferent

I can't imagine what you base that on. Comparing the size of crowds who protested the war for example, Europe did much better than America. Europeans seemed to be much more engaged on the issue of the war.

America has too many serious problems to list here. But a ready and instant sense of compassion and willingness to step up to the plate isn't one of them.

Which? American people or their government? I see no signs of compassion in Bush's foreign policy. The stated goals of the war were not compassionate. The war was sold on the basis of fear of a completely fabricated threat.

Nothing infuriates Europe more than when being ignored.

Your cheap shots against other countries, even if accepted as true do nothing to excuse the criminality of the United States (and UK).

No smoke screen of careful wording is changing the simple fact, that the US and Britain with its allies didn't need a 'war-sanctioning resolution'

They did. I have quoted the relevent article. I have never seen anyone present a legal argument that shows Bush didn't violate the UN charter. This is mostly a non-issue in America where law breaking by the premiere is considered ok, but in the UK it has been a big issue and if there were a legal argument Tony Blair would certainly have made it.

The fact however remains, the UN legality was there beforehand based on specific UN resolutions, expressing concrete military threats if contravened

That's simply false. I suggest you read the charter. There is no basis in the charter for the spin you are refering to. It's not a legal argument. It's a deception which counts upon ignorance in the listener as to the nature of the UN charter. It makes people think the UN charter has some kind of exception for carrying out war if there was a resolution many years before. People think, "Well if that argument is valid then the charter must say it". But it doesn't. It's the big lie. It's a flat out fabrication to con the ignorant. If you insist on this "argument" then please quote me the article of the UN charter that allows someone to attack another country because of a different period of conflict many years before hand. Try to find it. Obviously I cannot provide it since it doesn't exist!

But the US and Britain have committed the worst offense imaginable to the UN'

A war of aggression. You seem to think the worst crime is insulting the UN. Actually the worst crime is a war of aggression. That's because hundreds of thousands of people don't die when you insult someone. That tends to happen during wars. if you value human life then the deaths of so many people is considered a huge crime. An insult is not considered a crime. I'm labouring this point because astonishingly you just don't seem to "get it". You are trivialising the deaths of half a million people. You're not content to deny without basis the criminality of the war, you want to ridicule the very idea that mass murder is a crime at all. This attitude reflects poorly upon you.

most of Europe's refusal to come to America's and Britain's aide in Iraq when things didn't work out as quickly as anticipated and when Bush expressly asked for their help in '04 and '05. Absolutely no consideration for the 'suffering' Iraqis.

You appear to have no irony in suggesting those who refused to cause the slaughter of so many have less compassion than the criminals who did. In fact many Europeans sent troops to Afghanistan not Iraq, allowing US and UK troops to be used in Iraq. Europe cleaning up America's mess. And why did you put scare quotes around the word "suffering"?

you are in danger of becoming a 'troll' when you persistently ignore those basic facts and insist on trampling such genuinely held opinions with untoward and vitriolic rhetoric

You appear to be the one living in a 2003 fantasy land of magical thinking. However I apologise if I have been vitriolioc. This is not my intention. I hope I answered what you were asking in that post, although I don't feel I've got any closer to understand our differences here. I have no idea why you beleive what you do. It seems completely irrational. I'd appreciate it if you could explain the basis for your opinions.

[North by Northwest]

David,

What you don't seem to accept is that Saddam did pose a threat to regional stability and as such to vital interests of the West. Heck, he started a war against Kuwait and warred with Iran for the best part of the 80ies. He used Iraq's Oil billions to further terror at home and across his borders.

What you also seem to reject outright, is that Americans, both left and right, genuinely feel strongly about people being oppressed by dictatorial regimes and their willingness to help if they can. You'll retort of course, with, I don't know how many examples, where the population either turned a blind eye or remained entirely ignorant. But that is in itself no evidence to the contrary. It's possibly an indication of the public's reliance on what the MSM deems newsworthy and what the government picks up to run with. It doesn't however change the core sentiment.

In Europe, people are much more cynical and in many ways much less 'romantic' in sentiment, you could say indifferent. Germans are much quicker to point out, "..they've got themselves into this mess, let them now sort it out by themselves.."; French would analyze and philosophize endlessly until the crisis is over, probably never realizing that a secret mission of the Foreign Legion sorted out the bloody mess; British would exclaim, "..poor dears.." and swiftly change the subject to something less emotional, preferably the weather, asking, "another cup of tea, dear?". Blair broke this mold of indifference and got fried for it ever since.

America has too many serious problems to list here. But a ready and instant sense of compassion and willingness to step up to the plate isn't one of them. Yes, you probably could say that with that immediacy comes a certain superficiality, but more has been achieved because of it than not. 'Ad-hoc' action is another side-effect, valid of criticism. The administration certainly is guilty of a number of those during the Iraq war.

But none of that takes away the validity of the rationale to go to war with Saddam Hussein, irrespective of all the aforesaid and irrespective of any 'sentiment'. And that is the crux of the debate. You've bought into the following synopsis:

After months of threats and a long military buildup, the United States attacked Iraq on Thursday, March 20, 2003. Washington cut short UN arms inspections, acting with its military ally, Britain, after a war-sanctioning resolution failed by a wide margin to gain support in the UN Security Council. The war faces strong opposition from France, Germany, Russia, China and the great majority of UN member states as well as world public opinion. The US and the UK, with a military ground force of about 300,000, encountered stiff Iraqi resistance. The war has created a deep humanitarian crisis in Iraq and a deep political crisis in the international system.

Nothing infuriates Europe more than when being ignored. Nothing infuriates a self-important, yet utterly incompetent, corrupt and wasteful to unforetold degrees, organization like the UN more than being ignored. No smoke screen of careful wording is changing the simple fact, that the US and Britain with its allies didn't need a 'war-sanctioning resolution', or to but it differently, the absence of such a 'war-sanctioning resolution' did not make the war illegal, as you and the opposition have us now believe.

I leave you to enjoy the spin, which, if it is true what you say about yourself and your independent mind, could not possibly be lost on you; hint: "cut short UN arms inspections"; "deep humanitarian crisis in Iraq"; "deep political crisis in the international system".

The fact however remains, the UN legality was there beforehand based on specific UN resolutions, expressing concrete military threats if contravened. As I said before, narrow, but valid.

But the US and Britain have committed the worst offense imaginable to the UN's and Europe's pride: holding up the mirror to its own impotence thinly veiled by its procrastination.

The duplicity and deeply cynical 'Schadenfreude' dripping from the above quote is a spit in the face in light of both the UN's and most of Europe's refusal to come to America's and Britain's aide in Iraq when things didn't work out as quickly as anticipated and when Bush expressly asked for their help in '04 and '05. Absolutely no consideration for the 'suffering' Iraqis.

Instead we are treated to more hyperbole and empty words by the author of the above quote, the UN's Global Policy Forum:

[Our] mission is to monitor policy making at the United Nations, promote accountability of global decisions, educate and mobilize for global citizen participation, and advocate on vital issues of international peace and justice.

Blue helmets have more blood on their hands based on deliberate corruption and evil greed on the ground of almost every conflict theater endorsed and promoted by their very leaders than any flawed planning or execution by the US or British Military in recent history.

And you are in danger of becoming a 'troll' when you persistently ignore those basic facts and insist on trampling such genuinely held opinions with untoward and vitriolic rhetoric, when you take the debate into realms of generalization where exchanges are necessarily degrading to name calling and insults. You don't need to, as you have shown on previous occasions.

[Washington]

Alexandra,

Please accept my apology. I won't use the word again here.

[Alexandra]

OK break it up you two, I hate people being called trolls at the best of times, and I don't think David fits the profile, so can we drop the troll thing please, it's a word I truly loathe.

[Washington]

Ha! Mr. Byron had a nerve touched! I told you lads he would bite.

Typical troll.

[DavidByron]

Funny coincidence :)

unsure of himself in personal situations, withdrawn, and was likely picked on a great deal in the lower school years. All of these traits are found in trolls.

And as it turns out they are also the traits of conservatives!

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

[DavidByron]

Patriot-baiting doesn't work on me. I'm fine with you calling me "anti-American". I'm not a US citizen. Most people in the world have a poor view of America these days. In many respects I am anti-American. In some I am not.

What I do find frustrating, and I am open to suggestions here, is how to get you Republicans to answer the substance of what I am saying instead of attacking the messenger, which you might find rewarding but does nothing for the conversation, or equally by becoming too defensive of remarks I've made and responding by criticising the Democratic party, which has nothing to do with the criticism I am making.

At this point I am not attempting to explain my own position, although it may become clear in passing I suppose, but to discover what it is the rest of you think, and test it for consistency so I can tell the core values or the real values from the dross of what passes for political debate (slogans and misinformation) these days.

But I don't seem to get answers that direct me to that core set of beliefs because you all seem more keen on defending Bush than being consistent. You're all looking for "traps" in what I say maybe. Well, yes, being consistent is tough sometimes, but there's no shortcut.

What business does America have going to war against a country that's no threat to America? What business does America have in an open ended occupation? What business does America have in becoming an empire? In eternal war, "the health of the state"? These are questions any real conservative would recognise as entirely legitimate. So how come I get labelled as a troll for asking questions like that on a conservative board?

Yes it's easy to rubbish the UN but the question remains, what kind of conservative cheerfully rejects the idea that America is a country that honours it's promises? What kind of conservative is not worried by huge deficits and a president who is claiming the powers of a king? Are these not legitimate questions?

[Washington]

Alexandra,

Mr. Byron attempts to convince you that his political acumen is so well formed that he gets banned on left wing blogs. As someone mentioned in an e-mail he is obviously seeking to provoke-not debate. He wears being banned as a badge of honor.

It further frustrates him that Mr. Bush is President. However, Byron is a troll. If Joe Biden were President he would likely be ranting against him. This leads me to believe that Mr. Byron is anti-American.

He is unsure of himself in personal situations, withdrawn, and was likely picked on a great deal in the lower school years. All of these traits are found in trolls.

[gringoman]

Thanks to Alexandra for that link to Treasure of Baghdad, an account of and by Iraqi family during the day America toppled Saddam. One of these accounts is worth a thousand MSM sound bites.

[Huan]

Bush Derangemenet Syndrome in its full regalia!

[DavidByron]

a testament to your dogged repetition of the message, and testament to the power of the traditional MSM to drive the public opinion

Oh really? And when was the last time someone with my opinions was on TV? Or featured in any national media? Please. I even get banned from left wing blogs. Perhaps you meant the Democrats' message? What message?

The only thing that Bush's Republican party can do well is distort public perceptions. Give the devil his due on that. A lot of progressive blogs label themselves "part of the Reality based community" in reference to the famous statement from a white house insider saying that Bush and co deliberately scorn reality.

Magical thinking drives Bush (this ought to be concern to any christian btw). They think that good thoughts create their own reality. In fact for a long time this "policy" of magical thinking worked in political terms. Say something often enough and it becomes true. Catapult the propaganda as Bush said. Reality is what you call it.

Can any concept be considered less "conservative"?

At any rate it has worked well in political terms because, for example if you SAY that Bush won an election often enough it becomes true. If you SAY Bush is a popular president it becomes true - as far as the media reporting is concerned at least. In politics perceptions can shape reality.

But this policy of magical thinking -- witchcraft that is -- didn't work on any non-political issue. Merely saying the Iraq war was won didn't mean the war was won. Merely saying help was on its way to Katrina victims didn't mean help was really on the way. Merely saying tax cuts for the super wealthy will boost tax revenue didn't mean tax revenue increased. Merely saying deficits don't matter didn't make it so.

But it does mean that you live in a bubble unaware of problems while they fester and become catastrophic failures. failures that you try to dodge with equally false statements such as "Nobody could have predicted that...."

Nobody could have predicted they would use kidnapped planes. Nobody could have predicted the levees wouldn't hold. Nobody could have predicted there were no WMDs. Nobody could have predicted popular resistance to the occupation....

In the end when reality came back to bite them even the distortion of popular perceptions they are so skilled at, failed. Even with a largely sycophant media still spinning Bush as popular. Even with a 100% docile "opposition" party. How to explain that the majority of America wants Bush impeached when nobody in the media or among the Democrats is talking about it?

So please don't accuse me of using propaganda and the repetition of simple slogans by control of the mass media when your own leader actually came right out and said "You've got to catapult the propaganda". When real White House staff are stating that they have contempt for "you in the reality based community".

C'mon Alexandra. Get a grip here. Which side is using propaganda techniques / magical thinking? Which side is believing their own repetative slogans?

It's been said before; what made Bush good at stealing elections (distortion and lies - magical thinking) is very bad for actually governing a country.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Firstly: In my opinion there is a civil war going on between Sunnis and Shi'ites. It just isn't 'full scale' yet. It is to big to be called simply 'terrorism'.

That being said, it is obvious to me the West can not afford to withdraw from Iraq. Once we pull out, full scale civil war will break out. We can prevent that from happening, if we withdraw and full scale war breaks out, we'll be (partially) responsible for that.

No matter what one thinks about David Byron this: "Between enemies "foreign and domestic" it's always been the domestic sort who had the greater capacity for destruction", is extremely true. We should always be aware of that.

Besides that I get the feeling now and then he's trying to piss people off (excuse language) on purpose as well.

[Washington]

Alexandra,

Mr. Byron talks about America as if he truly understands the issues here. He rarely talks about his own country. It's obvious that he seeks only to raise the blood pressure. In talking with others here it is painfully obvious that the gentleman is a pure sophist - he knows just enough to sound credible but his verbosity betrays his ignorance.

Of course people will always respond to him because if he found that he was not getting the attention he would say something even more outrageous until someone responded. He offers nothing but "troll, fear, and hyperbole."

[DavidByron]

But everyone seems to have missed the most important issue here. Until you can pinpoint who is actually doing the killing, you cannot call it a civil war. And if you have a small group of killers inciting violence, then they are terrorists.

As requested I'll address this. I don't really care what it's called but I note that the Bush administration and their media has been talking up Civil War in Iraq for years as a means to bolster support for the war. Constantly they have told us that America has to stay in Iraq because if US troops left there might be a Civil war. So it's just spin.

As to whether America would be better off leaving Iraq at this point that seems clear. It's the exact same issue the Soviet's faced in Afghanistan. If America pulls out they lose even more prestige. If they don't they will be bled to death and eventually still have to pull out. Logically then they must pull out but any president who issues such an order will probably pay for it politically (despite popular support for the action), so it won't happen and America will bleed and bleed. Hence it's a trap. An "eagle trap" if you like.

[DavidByron]

Well Alexandra, I can certainly see why you'd rather attack Democrats than defend Bush. But I'm not a Democrat and I'm not interested in defending them. On the contrary you'd probably be defending them sooner than I would -- as for example over Clinton's war in Kosovo.

the US is the last westernized country with the military capability to fight a major war; if they are hamstrung and shown to be feckless and unwilling to see their obligations through, the first casualty will be Europe, who—lacking both the will and the means to fight back against creeping Islamic fundamentalism

Pretty ironic statement considering that the last time the US intervened directly in Europe it was to help the muslim fundamentalists against the christians. I think I can safely say Europe will be safer without that kind of "help". But you defend Clinton if you want.

I bet you'd probably run to defend Carter sooner than I would too. For example his decision to back fundamentalist muslims in Afghanistan in an attempt to bait the "bear trap" of Afghanistan. Another example of the US helping arm fundamentalist Islam, a policy expanded on by Reagan. And another policy that had negative blowback for Europe too. Are you going to defend Carter?

And who can doubt that Bush's policies haven't increased Al-Qaeda's prestige? As far as the war against terrorism goes with friends like America who needs enemies. Europe has dealt with terrorism for a long time, even while naive Americans were funding for example the IRA. Europeans don't need America coming along and using a sledgehammer to kill a fly that's settled on their nose.

Besides Bush has proven to the world that the US simply doesn't have the power to fight a war anymore. Not even a small war. America should stick to attacking countries with a population of less than 10 million.

And what's this nonsense about "emboldening the enemy"? What enemy? Do you mean Iraq that you apparently attacked by accident? Or are you still more afraid of beardy weirdies than the collapse of your economy? Frankly who cares if Osama is emboldened --- but just for the record Bush's policies have had that effect. Elsewhere you have rhetorically asked why Democrats fear Bush more than Osama. Well I doubt they do but they ought to. And any American patriot ought to. Why? Because Bush is the one who can destroy your country. Between enemies "foreign and domestic" it's always been the domestic sort who had the greater capacity for destruction. Conservatives used to know that. They used to be suspicious of state power and the encroachment of the presidency on the powers of the states and other parts of the federal government.

But that was before fear ruled them.

...disappointing allies, raising taxes, restricting global trade by attacking “outsourcing” (which has been a net positive for the US), and adding more and more layers of government regulation to everything from health care to the dissemination of information...

Are you describing what Bush has done or what you fear Democrats would do? Seems like you could be describing either one.

[Washington]

I hit "post" prior to finishing...

It might be wise to put a new person up front at the DOD. I have the good fortune of talking to many, many people in the military and it is evident that new leadership is desired. Loyalty to political appointee's is wonderful but it is wise to not let that loyalty bring about failure.

We have made tactical errors in Iraq both in planning and execution. There is no getting round that-they occur in every war. However, there is no getting round the fact that victory is in front of us-not behind us if only we seize it.

[North by Northwest]

OK, David, this is getting boring. We know your views on Bush and all his failings.

Alexandra makes an excellent point which you should address instead of repeating your standard rants:

"But everyone seems to have missed the most important issue here. Until you can pinpoint who is actually doing the killing, you cannot call it a civil war. And if you have a small group of killers inciting violence, then they are terrorists."

You are also being presumptuous when you reduce any in your view opposing opinion relating to the critical debate over our continuing presence in Iraq to mere Bush loyalism. We should never have left Afghanistan when Russia packed it in. Whatever mistakes made in the past 3 years pale into insignificance if we were to cut our losses prematurely and left Iraq in a hurry for reasons of domestic criticism. Especially when such criticism is largely motivated by partisan opportunism and not by genuine concern for what lies in the best interest of the U.S. and its Allies in the Middle East.

When I read your comment, I am convinced, that all you say would in fact become applicable if the troops were recalled without successfully supporting the fragile and treacherous process of stabilizing Iraq. There are so many arguments why such a strategy is of vital importance and why you are witnessing such a dogged determination in the resolve of our enemies to break our will to succeed. There is not a day that goes by, when I don't question my present stance and conviction, wondering whether in fact there are reasonable arguments for us to hand over the reigns and leave the Iraqis to sort themselves out. But fundamental geopolitical and economical dependencies binding all key members of our global market economy simply overrule such sentiments.

And one more thing, I too am highly critical of Bush and his administration. But not for what their are doing and their determination in Iraq and the Middle East, but for their appalling communication skills. There is far too much bravado and gung-ho rhetoric coming out of the WH, instead of measured explanation of the underlying reasoned rationale. Whatever you may think now, try to remember this crucial difference in years to come, i.e. actions=right, ability to communicate at home=failed. That is of course if we have it what it takes to see this through. If we don't, the opportunity costs as a direct result thereof will dwarf your 'trillions' manyfold.

[Washington]

I have stated that Mr. Byron is a sophist. Luckily he does little to dissuade anyone from that opinion. My first statement would be to say, Mr. Byron: What about the UK? There are enough problems there to keep you occupied for some time and unlike here you might actually have a point to make.

[Alexandra]

Let me tell you something David “anything Bush says, I say the opposite, even if it means siding with an idiot like Carter” Byron,

If a House takeover by Democrats leads to a series of grandstanding show trials against Bush—even as the war in Iraq and elsewhere is ongoing—the negative repercussions are likely to be enormous in the long run; the US is the last westernized country with the military capability to fight a major war; if they are hamstrung and shown to be feckless and unwilling to see their obligations through, the first casualty will be Europe, who—lacking both the will and the means to fight back against creeping Islamic fundamentalism—will almost assuredly be forced to make concessions they might otherwise not make.

That you guys have been able to gull many Americans into believing that your policies (which, let’s face it, who the hell knows what they are, exactly, except “whatever Bush says, argue the opposite") will make us safer and more economically stable at home—something that, intuitively, at least, I would say emboldening the enemy, disappointing allies, raising taxes, restricting global trade by attacking “outsourcing” (which has been a net positive for the US), and adding more and more layers of government regulation to everything from health care to the dissemination of information is likely to have the exact opposite effects—is a testament to your dogged repetition of the message, and testament to the power of the traditional MSM to drive the public opinions of those who are only casual followers of the news.

I’ll see you at the ‘impeachment ceremony’ just don’t hold your breath, you might get mighty uncomfortable, and by the way get a leader, get a policy, any policy will do, that would be a good start, the rest is just constant regurgitated hot air.

[DavidByron]

Continuing support for the American Caligula? By appearing to support Bush no matter what he does you risk becoming politically irrelevent.

The majority of Americans now want to see Bush impeached. His approval is below one third. He doesn't enjoy majority approval even in the Red states. Even on pragmatic grounds continuing to support him seems like political suicide.

But on the basis of principle?

This nutcase is destroying your country, inside and out. Should America become bankrupt I would say there's a real danger of fascism taking hold.

The war was fought illegally. It has killed many Americans, cost trillions of dollars ading to the economic colapse of America, ruined your reputation in the world as a military power. You've been beaten by little more than street gangs. Gone also is any pretense America had of being an honourable nation -- now world opinion says America is more dangerous than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein.

Bush's popularity seems to diminish in the eyes of poll gazers-- largely for non-war reasons

Well there's no shortage of reasons to hate Bush. Economic, constitutional, reasons of character, corruption, law breaking. What I can't see is any reason to tolerate him -- unless you happen to be one of the pigs feeding at the trough of course. No reason from ANY principled political perspective.

[Huan]

I think there has been civil war in Iraq since its liberation. Whenever you have one faction within a nation-state using violence against another for political control, I call that a civil war. However, it seems that despite the desires of these factions to engulf the nation in war, most Iraqi are not bothering to participate. This is a suretail sign that despite what you call it, civil war or not, it has little popular traction. Millions went to the polls to vote. If only half of them took up arms and participated in the civil war, you will certainly know it. The Iraqi have rightly and wisely chosen the political arena to settle their differences. Good for them. What we are witness to now is the war of semantics in political discussions and media reports.

Time to turn our attention elsewhere.

btw, interesting choice in another Brom. 3 is no coincidence.