Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
"After the slaughter, sickening jubilation"
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Last word # 77,130-something
Actually, according to the numbering of comments that was Last Word # 77,131.
By the way, not all the consequences would have been the same if the UN Charter had not been by-passed by those wanting to prove their military strength and that unilateral pre-emptive strike doctrine was the right way to go about doing so.
Oh ferkrisake shut up the lot of you
Move on to something else willya?
Fiona: I concur, Scott.
Pictures and persuasion
Kathy, I agree that those who hold the reins of power and who are "hellbent on war" are unlikely to be deterred, especially those who are chickenhawks like Cheney, George W Bush etc etc. However, if such images have the effect of even making one person who was pro-war think again they are worth it (wrote this before I read your latest, Richard; obviously I agree with you).
Paul Morrella, indeed, supports my proposition with his reminder of the televising of the Vietnam War. There are strong arguments that the graphic images broadcast nightly into US (and Australian) living rooms ultimately led to public opinion turning against the war. This was one reason why the USA explicitly “embedded” journalists with the troops – and those journalists were the ones on the mainstream media like the Dirty Digger’s Fox, so what middle America was fed since 2003 was a pro-US, pro-war line. The need to win the information war was also behind the US Government’s decision to ban the public release of images of body bags coming home.
All gone too far
Kathy: I agree with you entirely and I for one do not access any links like that.
No one needs to access the images in order to know what the scene would be like in a market full of Iraqi men women and children who have just been blown up by a suicide bomber.When I hear of such acts I think not only of those blown to pieces but of those who no doubt survived, to live with mutilated bodies for the rest of their lives. I see nothing to be gained by being an interent ghoul as I am sure many who access such scenes in fact are. And that is not saying those here do so for that reason.
I am with Richard on this and I would be very concerned as a parent of young children at a whole range of stuff that now appears on the internet, to which Justin referred. Young children are now exposed to the most pornographic and the most violent material that cannot possibly have a healthy effect on young minds. Why should anyone these days be surprised when we hear of 8 and 9 year olds plotting to murder their teacher in the US. The sick side of society has been enabled by the internet to emerge from behind the curtains to display its stuff to the world, and I think our young and society as a whole are paying the price for that. It seems to me that more and more young people are committing violent crimes.
I admit that the net has also enabled the world to see what others would seek to hide and to access an enormous range of useful information, and that is a good thing, but how do you find the balance. How do you stop the sickos from getting into your kid's study. Filters can only do so much.
It seems to me that many producers of crime series also now think that they have to include the ghoulish and the gross in order to keep their audience. I find myself turning off programs that I once used to watch for that reason.
I sometimes wonder just what society will be likely in another fifty years and am glad in a way that I will not be here to find out. I can understand where the Amish are coming from, but that is not the answer.
In the meantime I think the evening news gives us a graphic enough account of war, poverty, violence and suffering in the world generally, as if we didn't already know.
Civilisation
Despite what is said in the history books, I'm inclined to think that WW1, "The Great War for Civilisation", was the one we lost, Justin Obodie.
Fair Enough
Ok, Justin, I understand where you're coming from, and on reading your post had been considering publishing that link. As I personally hadn't seen anything of such a nature on this site I wasn't going to hit the button without discussing with an another ed. Now that Fiona has clarified our stance all's well.
As an olive branch I offer Craig's link that I removed. It's a lot tamer than yours, Justin, and no I'm not talking about the Paris Hilton one.. However I will accompany it with a warning for those who aren't keen on witnessing the aftermath of bloody tragedy that they should avoid it. It's here.
Maybe I've been putting too much of myself into this. Having identified an 18 year old after he jumped in front of a train, I've been twitchy about such things ever since.
Perhaps, if people were made to see such graphic results of actions carried out in their names, war would be a thing of the past.
Anyway, enough! Let's move on, shall we?
Dude, It's a Web Page (that I rather enjoy)
Craig: "Paul, I'd ask you to apologise for calling me a "tool", but you've refused several times to apologise for deliberate misrepresentation, misquoting, and other deceptive conduct, so I'd expect you've been allowed some kind of a special dispensation from Webdiary Ethics that enables you and only you to keep making insulting "you are ..." comments."
Webdiary: I thought about it, and decided, I owed at least a semi-serious response. Richard Tonkin was of course 100% right with his interpretation. Amazingly this appears not to have been so obvious to at least one person. You guys probably need another round of he said, she said, like a hole in the head (very deep boring kind of hole).
I've been allowed no such "special dispensation". And I've never been allowed any such "special dispensation". Why the hell would anyone here want to give me "special dispensation"? If I were a cry baby I'd probably feign indignation and call immediately for an apology. Like, as if people are going to come running to my aid like the knight in shinning armor (lol). "Special dispensations" and all!
Now back to the real world: I didn't call you a "tool". I made a statement about posts such as that being used as tools for propaganda. And they are, and they have been, since at least the turn of the 20th century. The fact is that you can post as many pictures as you see fit, and it still won't take away from many of the points being made by others. Obviously some points not to your particular liking or you wouldn't have posted the pictures. The pictures of course being an emotional propaganda tool to silence critics of what your particular spin happens to be. It works or is meant to work on a fairly basic level: If you are against me you are for this etc... Karl Rove (the most well known of the exponents) was(is) a master of such techniques.
I will on further thought, concede the propaganda tool phrase, may be a little literary indulgent. [Fiona: I have cut the next sentence, Paul, to save you from displaying a different form of indulgence.]
If you don't enjoy what I write; don't read it. If I choose to read what you write; I will. If I choose to comment on it; I will. If I choose not to read it or comment on it; I won't. It's called freedom of choice, and it's been all the rage for at least two hundred odd years.
All in a morning's browse
Gene at Harry's Place writes interesting stuff. Like this:
"Once in a great while, someone writes something about Iraq that cuts through the mountains of self-serving crap produced on all sides of the debate and actually helps illuminate, rather than obscure, one's view of what has happened-- and continues to happen-- since the 2003 invasion.
"That's what journalist Tish Durkin did in a piece she wrote for the Huffington Post...
"Now George Packer-- perhaps the best current-affairs/political writer in the US-- has accomplished a similar feat with this article in World Affairs Journal:
Unlike Vietnam, where the arguments became truly poisonous only after a few years of fighting, the Iraq War was born in dispute. The administration’s deceptions, exaggerations, and always-evolving rationales provoked a counter-narrative that mirrored the White House version of the war in its simple-mindedness: the war was about nothing (except greed, empire, and blind folly). Once, after a trip to Iraq, I attended a dinner party in Los Angeles at which most of the other guests were movie types. They wanted to know what it was like “over there.” I began to describe a Shiite doctor I’d gotten to know, who felt torn between gratitude and fear that occupation and chaos were making Iraq less Islamic. A burst of invective interrupted my sketch: none of it mattered—the only thing that mattered was this immoral, criminal war. The guests had no interest in hearing what it was like over there. They already knew.
So the lines were drawn from the start. To the pro-war side, criticism was animated by partisanship and defeatism, if not treason. This view, amplified on cable news, talk radio, and right-wing blogs, was tacitly encouraged by the White House. It kept a disastrous defense secretary in office long after it was obvious that he was losing the war, ensured that no senior officer was held accountable for military setbacks, and contributed to the repetition of disastrous errors by the war’s political architects. Meanwhile, the fact that the best and brightest Iraqis were being slaughtered by a ruthless insurgency never aroused much interest or sympathy among the war’s opponents. The kind of people who would ordinarily inspire solidarity campaigns among Western progressives—trade unionists, journalists, human rights advocates, women's rights activists, independent politicians, doctors, professors—were being systematically exterminated. But since the war shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, what began badly must also end badly."
Packer goes on:
“I can never blame the Americans alone,” an Iraqi refugee named Firas told me in early 2007. “It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” To gain this wisdom, Firas had to lose almost everything. What would it take for Americans to understand what Firas already does? A recognition that Iraq was everyone’s loss, whichever side you were on.
Both Packer and Durkin have plenty of first-hand experience of Iraq. From the Tish Durkin piece:
Whatever you think of the rest of this post, please do not write in to impress upon me the horrors that have descended upon innocent Iraqis since the American-led invasion. I really feel that I know.
I know other things too, though. Maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but it is these other things that I feel the need to stress, especially to those who are now reveling in their rightness about the war. Those who opposed the war seem to feel that they are the perfect opposite of those who sold the war - and of course, in the important sense of the invade-or-not-to-invade question, they are. But in their collective allergy to any fact that may complicate their position; their proud blindness to the color gray, and their fervent faith in their own infallibility, the two sides have always struck me as very much the same.
Don't get me wrong. If I felt that this post were going to be read by a bunch of war apologists, I would take them angrily to task for the manifest, manifold failures in Iraq, and the criminally self-indulgent fictions on which those failures were based. But since this post is presumably being read mostly by war critics, I will devote it to challenging anti-war activists on their apparent belief that everything they say about Iraq is, always has been, and ever shall be true.
It is not, for instance, true that it was the American-led invasion that opened season on the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. Whatever else the Bush administration made up about Iraq, the rank murderousness of Saddam Hussein was not one of them. Amid the gunfire and giddiness of Baghdad right after its fall in April 2003, it was common to find people converging onto bits of infrastructure, manically fueled by the rumor mill: someone had said that there was a torture chamber underneath this stretch of highway; a secret prison built into this wall. People had no time to be interviewed; if they talked at all, they'd keep going as they panted: "My husband/brother/son disappeared twenty odd years ago; he could still be alive; I have to get him out." I remember going to a mass grave; a "minor" one, not far from Hilla. People were digging there, too: for bones, which were piled everywhere, a sickening canine bonanza. Close by there still lived a man who had seen what had happened there in the days after the war with Kuwait, but kept his mouth shut for years: busloads of innocent Shi'ites, screaming 'God is Great' at the top of their lungs, had been unloaded, rung around pre-dug graves, and shot.
Of course, it makes sense for Americans to feel more interested - and implicated -- in suffering that is inflicted in the context of an American occupation. And there is no question that - and it kills me that it has come to this -- fewer and fewer Iraqis see life after Saddam as any better than life under Saddam. Still, one needn't be a hawk, nor a rocket scientist, to give half a moment's thought to the possibility that the post-invasion suffering in Iraq, which we see and hear about constantly - as, of course, we should -- may seem disproportionately greater to us than the pre-invasion suffering, which we almost never saw or heard about at all.
No further comment.
More Proof Of Authenticity Please
Justin Obodie: "It reflects poorly on those who support this war and then complain about not being warned of the graphic nature of the images, Craig linked to, depicting the consequences of war."
People who complain about images don't necessarily support a war (I don't support this one). Or any war for that matter. They may have problems with images for a whole host of other reasons. The images are questionable, and it's by no means proven if hey're real or even if they've been caused by American forces.
Interestingly the images of the Vietnam War (real but then technology was not what it is today), were brought into homes by American media outlets, and other American sources.
Say What I Mean, Mean What I Say
Richard: "Crikey Craig, in context of the post, I'd only been considering Paul's comment to mean that you were being used as a possible propaganda tool."
You've considered rightly, Richard. I'm not so sure what a tool is; however, in the context I think I'd opt for the word "dick".
There is no way of knowing that those pictures were from US military activities. One (especially hideous) picture in particular looked to be of a birth defect. Could've have been found (unfortunately) in any hospital around the world. If people are going to post such things I believe they should be 100% sure of what they're posting. There are numbers of fraudulent attempts of propaganda across the web.
Thanks Fiona
Thanks kindly Fiona.
"That said, Justin, I’m horrified by your P – H link. How could you?"
Personally I was not horrified by the naked Paris at all. But that great big phallus she was gazing at made made me wonder if she was about to bite off more than she could chew.
Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself.
One day I'll grow up; looks like today was not the day. Maybe tomorrow, but let's not hold our breath.
More hypocrisy!!!
Okay, I did say adieu to this thread (and in my dreams blogging per se), but I'm back just long enough to thank Justin for not letting the issue of the graphic material go, as I in my laziness and torpor was inclined to do.
Thanks Jus! Everything you said was all too pungently true.
God Bless The Child
Richard, any unsupervised nine year old can not only access broken human beings on the net but the most disgusting pornography (and degradation of women and girls) one could image, all at the click of a mouse. It makes me sad, very sad that "civilised" human beings engage in such practices. Sadly many "civilised" human beings can't get enough of it.
For Christ's sake Richard this is the brave new world of cyberspace; no censorship, no gatekeepers. Technology is a doubled edged sabre; with the good we also have to deal with the bad.
Having said that I wholeheartedly agree that nine year olds should never and I repeat never have to witness such horror. Responsible parents such as yourself do make sure their children are not only protected from such imagery but also the reality. That is why I gave fair warning of what that link was about, also the link re Paris Hilton.
I'm sure most Iraqi parents feel likewise however it seems acceptable for some, many, that such depravity is OK to be inflicted on the children of others.
It should be the number one priority of all parents and responsible adults that children are worth more than a barrel of oil or share options in the MIC. I know mine are but it would appear Iraqi kids aren't.
Sadly our children have become nothing more than a marketing opportunity for business and cannon fodder for sick and twisted old men.
God bless the child.
If you choose not to publish my post then so be it, but would you do me the courtesy of forwarding same to Craig Rowley, for I believe he posted his link for the right reasons, which I support.
Sweet dreams old chap and may Paris Hilton treat you with generosity.
Warning Paris Hilton Naked !!!!! - YUM
Well it's time to exercise my god given right of hypocrisy. I did retire from this discussion some days ago. However, in defence of Craig Rowley I would like to add that he had every right to post that link depicting the carnage of war. The link should not have been removed.
I did the same as Craig some years ago in this very forum although stating that the images, of dead and broken children, were something I could not view in entirety. No one complained and nobody took me to task for posting that link to the slide show.
I am no tool, a fool maybe but as a loner a tool I am not - got it.
It reflects poorly on those who support this war and then complain about not being warned of the graphic nature of the images, Craig linked to, depicting the consequences of war.
War by definition is death and destruction; if we chose war we chose death and destruction. If the images of war ( sans smell etc.) are too harrowing for one to view then we should all have a bloody good think before inflicting (unnecessary) carnage on innocent women and children.
Personally if were up to me I would make it compulsory for those who champion war to see first hand the disgusting consequences of war. In our comfortable western societies many of us live our whole lives without experiencing genuine fear or terror. That reality is unknowable to many.
To this day I can still see and feel (and smell) in my soul and guts what slaughter actually is and the effects of same on children who have just witnessed the death of their dad.
Here is another link depicting the slaughter in Iraq, by comparison Craig's link was mild. As you have been warned you need not follow the link, especially if you want to remain in your comfort zone of frivolous debate and ego.
If you decide to have a peek and don't want to continue then exercise your god given right of free will to immediately hit the back button. Simple really.
I make no apologies for posting the above link and for those who find it too uncomfortable then click over to here for immediate distraction (warning - a variety of pics showing Paris Hilton dans la nudité - enjoy) or retire to the comfort of your plasma TVs or local pub where everything is just the way it should be.
Fortunately we have the choice to distract ourselves at will, our victims live with carnage on a day to day and year to year basis, no end in sight. How would you feel?
IT HAS TO FUCKING STOP!
PS. no apologies for my fowl language, get over it or grow up.
PPS. Richard, I would recommend you not view the first link, however of you view the second one your dreams may not be horrific, rather, wet ;-)
Fiona: I've looked at the links and – while apologising to fellow editors – have to say that I agree with Justin. We can’t just ooh and aah about the awfulness of it all unless we are also prepared to look at it. To give an historic example, if we were to censor ourself to this extent, that means we would not have - had Webdiary been in existence 63 years ago - shown pictures of the liberation of the Belsen-Bergen concentration camp. Me luds, I rests me case. However, I will admit that there is a caveat: links that are likely to upset the queasy among us (including me) should be explicitly stated to be such. That said, Justin, I’m horrified by your P – H link. How could you?
No pics needed.
Fiona, I fear those hellbent on war(the ones who hold all the power) would not be swayed by graphic pics anyway. Their hearts are hardened and impervious.
Some years ago, an older work collegue related to me the effects that the Vietnam war had on her husband. The poor man having seen his mate blown to bits a few feet away from him was a devastated and broken man. He woke in cold sweats, experienced nightmares and later became an alcoholic to block out the painful memories.
Why had he survived and not his friend? He felt guilty..
A very sad story indeed. I have never forgotten it.
Um er...
Richard, I don't quite understand how the warning you gave would "entice" anyone to look at that material. Your wording seemed very clear and there's only so much anyone can do to 'protect' people's sensitivities. And how many children would spurn more compelling portals like facebook to read this site?
My previous remarks, at any rate, weren't intended as a comment on anyone's motivations in this matter.
Never mind. Cheers all, and adieu.
Richard. Maybe I'm a worry-wart. A bientot.
To Justin
I'm taking the night off. Somebody else can decide whether to publish your link. Sorry I didn't look earlier but with a nine year old daughter sitting beside me I am so glad I didn't
I don't know about from a legal standpoint, but from a moral stanpoint do you think that photos of pieces of flayed meat barely recognisable as human should be made easily accessible to those not of majority age? Other moderators may feel otherwise, but I wish to have no part in it.
I'm horrified and saddened by what I've seen, and am not up to making the decision you've placed before me.
I have also passed Craig's link to other eds.
Good night.
I agree Richard.
Have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion, Richard, having young children myself.
I also really feel, that intelligent and sentient human beings, (and I do believe this includes all that comment here on WD) have no need of such horrific photos.
I myself refuse to click on the link.
War is horrid in any shape or form.I don't need graphic pics to understand this. I don't need graphic pics to tell me all war is wrong. I have my conscience for that.
Controversy
I'm sincerely sorry to hear, Richard, that Craig's link to those images cost you a restless night. I guess this just underlines again the kinds of pressures WD moderators can experience.
Probably the warning as to their graphic nature would have sufficed, which Craig himself might have considered when originally posting.
As to the veracity of the material, that should be for individual adult human beings to judge for themselves. It's to be expected some will have a priori opinions either way.
Whether any of those images are atrributable specifically to US actions in the Iraq war is, for me, rather beside the point. It's in the nature of such a conflict that civilians of all ages will inevitably be harmed by 'advanced' weapons designed to shred and pulverize everything from metal armour to human flesh. The material linked, whatever the source, quite likely depicts the kinds of results one may expect.
In the early years of the war, the Iraq Body Count project, which is at the 'conservative' pole of groups attempting to ascertain the effects of the conflict on the civilian population, found that:
In only August of 2003, IBC noted:
The information is 'out there' and has been dealt with at length over the years here and elsewhere. Why this should still be controversial is probably a complex problem, but what strikes me is how we, living here in our petroleum-fuelled consumer paradise, seem so hermetically sealed from the realities of conflict.
I could go on, but it's all been said before and anything I might add is utterly inconsequential.
So, Richard, allow me to prescribe for you Sweet Dreams tonight, to be taken as required.
Richard: Jacob, some of the images were burned into the back of my eyelids. I was worrying that my warning may have been an enticement to look, and did not want to feel responsible for scarring others. Craig has indicated privately that he is not unhappy with my decision. I can understand why he posted the link, he can understand why I removed it.
Would you leave pictures of corpses and mutations around for kids to see? I didn't want the possibility. The stuff, as you say, can be found by anyone who wants to find it. And yes, my dreams tonight will probably be better than the horrible ones I had last night.
Propaganda
Craig Rowley, I do not believe three quarters of those pictures (as truly terrible as they were) were caused by American manufactured weapons (one quarter is at best inconclusive). This is nothing more than a propaganda stunt; and you are the tool.
The American forces have used napalm, and phosphorus bombs (both I consider to be a war crime) to the shame of the [so called] Americans involved (many refused), and to the shame of our nation - they are the pictures NOBODY wants to see. Everything deserves to be judged on its merits or lack there of.
Your pictures are not one of those times!
Propaganda
Now that the link to real images of the Iraq war has been removed by Richard, it should be pointed out that the website was a portal providing links to many websites where images of the reality of the war in Iraq have been published.
Unlike the situation with most wars of the past, the on-the-ground effects of the Iraq war are captured by cameras and immediately posted all over the Internet where they serve to reinforce the view that after the slaughter any jubilation or "Obscene mutual backslapping" is indeed sickening.
By the way, amongst those websites, and therefore comprising a portion of the images, were photos of Americans also horribly wounded or killed in the war.
And aside from the shameful evidence of US napalm and phosphorus bomb attacks (which as Paul Morrella points out are "pictures that NOBODY wants to see", the reality of the impact on US troops is something we sadly know the Bush administration certainly did not want US citizens to see (despite "our values" of free speech).
Paul, I'd ask you to apologise for calling me a "tool", but you've refused several times to apologise for deliberate misrepresentation, misquoting, and other deceptive conduct, so I'd expect you've been allowed some kind of a special dispensation from Webdiary Ethics that enables you and only you to keep making insulting "you are ..." comments.
Richard: Crikey Craig, in context of the post, I'd only been considering Paul's comment to mean that you were being used as a possible propaganda tool. If we edit everything with a possible double entendre? However, if you took another meaning then it is my apology to make for publishing.
Titles
That was a nice story, Ian, about how you got to compost Nixon's memoirs and read them too. We could be waiting a while to find a better bookish anecdote.
And no, I wouldn't entirely give up on your thesis; in time, perhaps, it could be made to resemble empirical reality. At this point in its development, however, you don't need me to tell you that it'd require some deftly applied blunt force with a rubber mallet.
Having said that, I'd enthusiastically support your being awarded an ADEPT.
And oh yeah, regarding the title of this post, I too find "sickening jubilation" quite inappropriate.
"Obscene mutual backslapping" would probably be more accurate.
No! No! for arms, violence and fighting.
It seems the US troop surge has not been as successful as Bush is trying to make out.
The Brits have had to rethink their troop withdrawal.
After five years and little sign of success it is time for the COW to rethink and admit that it has bitten off more than it can chew. Let the civil war take place and support the victors. Otherwise we are just making the pain and death toll worse.
Choices Have Always Been There
Jacob A. Stam: "True, Paul, we commenters on the Webdiary beltway are so worldly and sophisticated that such things as appeasement and amorality may pass without comment. And one mustn't dwell on the past when all that matters is the results here and now. ;-)"
You guys aren't dwelling on the past, only bits and pieces of the past - and a lot of that's tenuous - merely an extension of already preconceived prejudice (could be a million individual reasons for that). One "Webdiary beltway commenter" was only recently writing how Saddam was armed and owned by the west (meaning America). Pointing out that this was not the case (USSR was easily the biggest arms supplier throughout the whole time, not even an argument, not even a doubt; it just was) was meet with an oh well it doesn't really matter - the USSR was at least not hypocritical.
Given that the USSR at the time was a communist dictatorship; the chances of the really tough press questions being asked, in between gussied up agricultural, and steel production reports was a little slim. And the AK 47 factory manager probably just thought record orders were due to fox hunting being back in season........:-)
Personally I don't believe America should be involved with the UN. It stopped serving a purpose (for America) at the end of the Cold War. It certainly is a financial drain, and it is becoming a public relations nightmare for Americans, and American interests. However, whilst America puts up the majority of cash and manpower; it's only natural it has the loudest voice - it's the largest shareholder and that's how a concern operates (in the real world). At any time another can pick up the running, though, as the case with Serbia has shown, it's easier being a back seat sermon preaching driver - whilst someone else does the hard yards.
Btw Australia can leave the special relationship at any time of its choosing. If the majority of Australians believe this is in their best interests they should go right ahead and do it - nobody is making anybody do something they don't wish to do. Or be a part of something they don't wish to be a part of. I have and will always respect the freedom of choice.
Look At The Bigger Picture
Craig Rowley: "Or we could have a long conversation about the consequence of the Bush administration's tolerance of methods explicitly banned by the UN convention on torture and its alliances with unusual bedfellows, such as the dictatorship of Uzbekistan (where the friendly President has opponents boiled to death)."
Why? What are you asking for an "illegal invasion" or something? An admonishment from the UN should be enough. What's a couple of people boiled in oil, between friends, and the world peace process?
The oil is probably like the shredding machine anyways.
Open minded enough?
Jenny Hume asks "what evidence does anyone have that he was going to become the peace maker of the ME and not continue the sort of business he had been in for thirty years of more."
Clearly, being conjectural, there's evidence for neither proposition. And obviously, past form would preclude the former. (It's not, of course, an absolute requirement that he become "the peace maker of the ME".)
As for the 'business-as-usual' scenario, if one examines that 'past form', it's evident that the period during which Saddam's most egregious crimes - for which he swung - were committed was during the 1980s, a period during which our great and powerful friend engaged in appeasement of Saddam, as well as substantial financial support. This overview of some of that period may be helpful.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that, after Gulf War 1, Saddam may have got the idea that the good old days were well and truly over. For the rest, some carrot and stick persuasion may have saved us all a lot of our present troubles. (Carrot and stick seems to have worked with Nelson Mandela's friend, Gaddafi.)
Of course, had Saddam remained in power, it's unlikely that certain friends of our great and powerful friend would have secured the lucrative oil distribution arrangements that were negotiated with the post-Saddam government (see Father Park's piece on PSAs).
Whether this had any bearing on the decision to take that "historic opportunity"... well, bite my tongue.
...and Around...
Oh yes, Ian, I'm aware of your little thesis. I noted some objections to it, which you haven't adequately addressed (other than to get uptight re Vietnam, making one feel one's views aren't welcome around here).
Specifically, in the post-Vietnam era, US foreign policy 'architects' have to make a more convincing show of spreading freedom and democracy to get Congressional approval for the long haul.
Look, I'm happy to accept there were some in the Administration (perhaps people like Powell) for whom the invasion represented an "historic opportunity" to get things right over there. But, assuming it can be done at all, as Father Park remarked, you can't do it "on the cheap". Some of those people must be feeling very cheesed off right now, and their memoirs will be something to look forward to.
Oh yeah, CHEAP... SIX TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Still, as I think Paul Morrella noted earlier, the transfer of wealth to the MIC will almost certainly trickle down to the various associated communities, stimulating economic activity in some significant way. Speaking of whom...
True, Paul, we commenters on the Webdiary beltway are so worldly and sophisticated that such things as appeasement and amorality may pass without comment. And one mustn't dwell on the past when all that matters is the results here and now. ;-)
ADEPT, but not out of my depth, I hope
"Oh yes, Ian, I'm aware of your little thesis. I noted some objections to it, which you haven't adequately addressed (other than to get uptight re Vietnam, making one feel one's views aren't welcome around here)."
Now Jacob, I'll admit that it's not the most profoundest thesis ever written. But I tried hard, and I did my best. That has to count for something.
Modesty of course forbids me saying otherwise. Nor do I want a doctorate for it, or even a master's, though some I am sure (well, hope) would say I deserve one, because I put a huge amount of work into it, and churned my way through two whole books while I was writing it. (Well, to be honest it was the same one twice over. I found two copies of The Memoirs of Richard Nixon spine up on a table outside the local Vinny's. I bought one, but unfortunately fell asleep while reading it in the bath, and finished up composting the tomatoes with it. So I went back the next week hoping to secure the other copy. And sure enough, it was still there, and marked down even further. But I still had to pay out good money for it, albeit taking precautions so that no disaster would occur the next time I fell asleep reading it.)
So the thesis didn't come easy, I can assure you.
I'll be happy if the professorial board of Webdiary would award me an Associate Diploma of Endless Political Treadmilling. Then I could write some letters after my name that stood for something worthwhile.
And Jacob, your views are always welcome around here, even to struggling unlettered ignoramuses like myself. No, particularly welcome. Especially to ignorant unlettered battlers like me.
I know it's not the most brilliant thesis ever written. But I tried hard, and I did my best. That has to count for something. That thought keeps occurring to me....
Richard: What about Webdiary's Apparently Repeatedly Bemused Lawson Expressive Reciter?
OK that's enough
Richard, I think that is about as much as I can endure tonight from you both. BTW: The WARBLER's renditions went today. Sorry I cracked one of the disc covers when I dropped the lot in the street. And no I don't drink, as you well know.
Richard: Sorry, Jenny, couldn't help it. I'm not far off bed, either.
Everyone Needs A Bad Guy
Jacob A. Stam: "So then, why not stick with the devil we knew?"
Because George and the brass were struck down with a little known Presidential disease called FDR syndrome. The great and the good, world builder, and all that. Tell me a post WWII President that hasn't invoked at least one FDR saying in revered monotones at one point?
Well, why bring this point up? Foreign policy is an amoral event (for all nations involved). You're either in at least a little or you're completely out - there aren't any shades of grey here. Probably the most disgraceful dereliction of honor (in my time) was the bombing of Belgrade. Slick Willy (yes, suffering FDR syndrome) with the help of Rubin's other half (reading the nightly propaganda sheet), won more than one Euro brownie point (and Chrissie won an award) for that adventure - up until that time, Serbia wasn't regarded as an enemy.
The plain truth was that death and destruction was on the European door - and who ya gunna call? Throw in a couple of scenes that none wish to see over dinner - and it's bombs away - ala Somalia, Haiti and on and on and on. Thing is; the only flags ever being burnt in Belgrade, are American flags - bit like everywhere else! Europe has its ass saved, from a little embarrassment, known as genocide (and even got itself a mock trial for the "sophisticated crowed") - and the world was all clean and pure once more - until of course the next time.
No Jacob, there isn't any UN World Police (and never will be), there is only those in, and those out. There aren't any shades of grey. The USA is blamed for being in, and it's blamed when being out - heaven forbid business as usual should ever change. Of course the real reason for the USA bash is rarely really to do with the actual conflict.
PS The pretence of some type "cover all non political international law system" is so completely laughable it's not even worthy of further comment. It doesn't exist and never will. And if you did an honest survey you'll probably find most Americans want out. And perhaps it's a good thing to find out how the world really does view Americans. God knows they're only to willing to share the view - unless disaster relief, work Visa's, a little humanitarian settlement, a little trade, a little protection, a little charity, a scientific breakthrough etc is needed.
Jenny Hume: "The thread title to me reflects the pathological anti US mindset."
They'll give you a million reasons; you're though 110% right.
Oblique name-calling
I was interested recently, having a conversation with the young, to find that I had to explain the term "peacenik". It seemed unbelievably absurd , in retrospect, that being anti the Vietnam war labelled you as a communist sympathiser.
I find the repeated assertion on this talkboard that opposition to the invasion of Iraq is held only or mainly by the left wing, to be equally truth-denying, even smearing. It seems like an oblique form of name-calling, and denies the role of many fine, brave people who are, and have traditionally been, of the right.
Revealing, indeed
Jenny Hume, it's strange that you bemoan the failure (of, presumably, your 'Left') to "assess future risk and weigh up options", when that was precisely the failing of the 'architects' of the Iraq tragedy.
From what I can make out, you've only ever "addressed" one scenario in "the range of possible scenarios in the ME and in Iraq" if the invasion hadn't proceeded. Namely, business-as-usual for Saddam.
A couple of days ago you said, "Just for the record I never believed the invasion of Iraq would achieve peace, stability and democracy there..."
So then, why not stick with the devil we knew? Sure, we'd have to forego our ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead moment of seeing Saddam swinging on the end of a rope, albeit for crimes that were going-on decades old and committed while world powers engaged in appeasement, or otherwise looked the other way.
Your conjectures below that Saddam would have gone back to his bad old ways are, after all, only conjectures. If all the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into bringing us the war-we-had-to-have had, instead, been invested in creative solutions to the problem of Saddam, well then...
Oh never mind, I assume you're not disposed to this line of discussion. And I've no wish to brow-beat anyone, particularly when I could elsewhere pursue being objectively, wickedly and obstinately pro-someone-or-other-else. (I must be stopped.)
Anyway, since you're so down on the Left, you might like to read what some of the former Iraq 'hawks' like Fukuyama have said since the war went pear-shaped.
Or not. It's of no consequence.
Of no consequence
Jacob, yes, it is of little consequence what any of us write here.
I think you will find however find that in the past I set out my reasons for believing the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea, not the least being that the current chaos was a likely outcome given the history of the region.
But that does not stop me from being open minded enough to think about the dilemmas that the US and the west generally faced in leaving Saddam alone. The sanctions had all but collapsed. Iraq has enormous potential wealth in oil revenues. WMD and nuclear technology are purchasable from the rogue traders. All under the stewardship of Saddam Hussein. Call it conjecture if you like, but what evidence does anyone have that he was going to become the peace maker of the ME and not continue the sort of business he had been in for thirty years of more? Rather beggars belief, a belief the US was clearly not going to buy, rightly or wrongly. While he remained, he was always going to be a threat both to his own people, and stability in a region of vital importance to the rest of the world. You can ignore the Mugabes of this world, but you cannot ignore the Saddam Husseins.
As for the long term protection of the Kurds, one here at least would have it that the US would carry the cost of running a no fly exercise forever, because that is no doubt what would have been required. The Europeans are not exactly keen to carry much of the cost of anything. Afghanistan being a good example. No, the Kurds and the Shias would have copped it again, nothing more certain once the US and the West generally threw in the towel. But should we be concerned about that? Well I happen to think we should.
F Kendall, if you are referring to what I write then say so. It is not demeaning to anyone to question the constant anti US slanging that goes on here by the predominantly left, and on other left wing orientated blogsites. Many people opposed the Iraq war, including me and many others who as you rightly say could not be classed as left wing, but I did so for rational reasons, not simply because it was the US that was spearheading it. Even a significant (minority) number of people on the left supported the US action in Iraq. But to many, and perhaps a majority on the left, the US has done nothing right throughout its entire history, and that view is expressed here and on countless other left wing sites constantly. That is what I find demeaning, particularly to a whole nation of people, (a nation incidentally that was crucial to Australia's fight for survival in its greatest ever crisis). It's all there if you can be bothered to read it.
The US may not get it right all of the time, but neither does it get it wrong all of the time as those sites, and some here (not all) would have us all believe. Fortunately the most extreme have either been banned here or left to vent their anti US bias and hate elsewhere. You might note that I am equalled unimpressed by the same hate and bias that inhabits the minds of some on the right. The first blogsite I ever came across was Tim Blair's which was attacking Margo at the time, and I have never been so disgusted in my life. I have never been back there since.
Over and out as I think you once wrote. Clearly nothing to be gained in continuing on this thread. I decided that once before and should have stuck to it.
Speaking of consequences
I reckon each engaged in conversations on this thread are open minded enough to think about the dilemmas that the US, and the world generally, face due to the decision to make an illegal invasion of Iraq.
The key issue is that unilateral resort to armed force by a group of States outside the framework of the UN Charter snubs both international law and international morality.
.. and consequences ...
Setting aside the key issue (i.e. the undermining of the UN Charter) as some are wont to do, there is still much that can be said about the long list of other, more immediate, consequences.
For example, we could discuss how the Bush administration and its allies overthrew the tyrant Saddam Hussein (let's say that's a good consequence), only to sow the seeds of future conflict and see the rise of religious Shia leaders loyal to Iran (let's say that's a not so good consequence).
Or we could have a long conversation about the consequence of the Bush administration's tolerance of methods explicitly banned by the UN convention on torture and its alliances with unusual bedfellows, such as the dictatorship of Uzbekistan (where the friendly President has opponents boiled to death).
... oh, and yet more consequences.
It'll probably not be tonight then, that we the open-minded and "adept" of Webdiary, will chat for hours about how the illegal invasion (unfortunately) fuels anti-Americanism.
For just one other consequence (not a good one) is that memories of war will remain alive for generations in the Middle East and they'll be (most unfortunately) tinged with hate toward the United States for its occupation and selfish political agenda.
Generations
Craig: "...memories of war will remain alive for generations in the Middle East..."
If only we could return to a pre-Bush era where generations of people in the Middle East knew only peace.
If you can't generate a reasoned response ...
... blame the victims, eh Dylan?
Richard: A warning. Craig's link is to many horrific pictures of dead, wounded and crippled. If you are of a sensitive nature I would suggest not going there. Craig, I would have preferred such a warning myself. Next time you want to go for shock value, a little more sensitivity please.
2 a.m. Update: I've just gotten out of bed to remove the link... couldn't sleep with it there.
If you can't grasp the simplest of points...
...you should respond with links to photos of dead kids, eh Craig?
My point - perhaps too subtle for you to appreciate - was that the people of the Middle East knew war long before 2003. These 'memories of war' are very much still alive in the minds of the people of the region. The Coalition were not the first to bring war to the region nor, I suggest, will permanant peace break out in the wake of their withdrawal from the region. Nothing I linked to blamed the victims of war in any way.
A region new to war??
Indeed Dylan, as if this region ever knew nothing of war. As if this region had only ever been introduced to this most terrible and inevitable of human endeavours in recent years. As if the region had lived in peaceful bliss all these thousands of years.
Spare me days.
Every power known to man - Middle Eastern included - has attempted to impose its imprint on the "fertile crescent". For the greater part these powers have been "western" - certainly over the last two thousand or more years. It has been a matter of the "western" way of war prevailing; the industrialised mass slaughter made possible by the political acceptance of the institution of the "standing army" and its industrial backing. It is now an 'economic' cornerstone of the "western" economy.
Many western powers have, by main force, imposed their will upon Mesopotamia and its surrounds over the past two millenia or more. All have failed eventually. They all shared a common fault - even the Romans - that of attempting to bend their "subject" peoples to their mores and likeness in one or many more ways or became incontinently extractive.
That imposition of outside rule which lasted the longest, over two centuries in fact, was the "empire" of the Achaemenids - the Persians. One might ask why. The answer has much to do with a term no longer able to be uttered in Australia, a much disparaged term: multi-culturalism. You see, the Achaemenids were much like the US (or any "imperial" power) in that they required of their subject nations certain things (cattle, sheep, precious metals, service in the army, ships from the Levantine coast, etc). They, though, had learned other lessons: nations resent being "remade"; peoples resent the cultural norms of others being forced upon them. Therefore the Persians allowed the continuation of local culture, custom and - a fortiori - religion. As well, unless provoked by rebellion, they allowed the local constitutions to continue to operate.
The US experience will be that although humans are all the same their experience is not. There is no one size fits all. That the US - or those who thought so in the administration - thought that because "we" experience "democracy" and the "freedoms" that attend it in a certain way then so, also, would an entirely different population in Mesopotamia speaks loudly of their ignorance.
If you can't grasp the simplest of points...
... attribute a different point to the person making it, eh Dylan?
My point was not that permanent peace will break-out in the wake of US withdrawal from the Middle East.
It was (as clearly stated previously): One of the many consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq is further anti-Americanism in the region.
Got it?
Hence ...
... my use, Dylan, of the word "fuels" rather than say "creates."
And my use, Dylan, of the term "just one" rather than something like "the only."
And my use of the term "remain alive" rather than something like "emerge" or "arise."
And my use of the joiner "and they'll be" to make the point about how those memories of war will now be tinged with hate toward the United States for its occupation and its selfish political agenda.
Funnily enough...
...that sounds like exactly what you did when you suggest that linking to accounts of wars in the region is "blaming the victim", eh Craig.
If and only if
If, and only if, you genuinely did not intend to imply, Dylan, that we shouldn't be concerned about the consequences when the victims of so much war in that region have been subjected to more of it following the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, then I am sorry to have suggested you may have been blaming them for being in their situation.
On the other hand, I unreservedly apologise to all others who follow the link I'd given and, without warning, are subject to the shock of seeing of some of the suffering of those victims (absent the sound, the smell and the feeling of the reality captured in those images).
Richard: Absent also are the pictures. I've removed the link. See my update on the post.
No Worries
Revealing
The day we do not bother to assess future risk and weigh up options, including military, then we all deserve the inevitable fate that could befall the free world. The lessons of the 1940s appear to be lost on some on the left, but not all.
And I find it revealing that the left and other opponents of the Iraq war have never been prepared to address the range of possible scenarios in the ME and in Iraq once Saddam was back in business, which, given the butcher's track record, are pretty predictable. The Kurds in the north would have been the first back in the reprisal line once the sanctions and the no fly zone were abandoned. And we all know what form the butcher's reprisals took toward the Kurds, not to mention the Shias in the south.
No. The left has no apparent interest in any of that. Too hard I guess. Fortunately world leaders do have to think about such things and work out ways to try and deal with them. They may get it right, and they may get it wrong, but engaging in empty rhetoric never achieved anything. The UN is the specialist on that score but some on the left here are not doing too badly either.
And hush hush. We simply must not point out the hypocrisy of the French and all those other countries undermining the sanctions (thus helping to keep Saddam in power at enormous cost to the people of Iraq) while opposing the US led invasion. Let us not be distracted by such realities. Keep the eye on and hit the ball at all cost. And we all know that ball is covered in stars and stripes.
Well if that is what turns the left on, then good luck. Fortunately it is a minority view.
Incidentally, regarding the title of this thread, I do not see the US as being jubilant over the loss of any lives in Iraq. It is in fact trying to stop that loss of life. But there are those in Iraq who want it to continue, for their own reasons. The thread title to me reflects the pathological anti US mindset.
We need the 'right' assumptions, I guess
To be 'right', it would seem, we must merely assume (without question) that the sanctions (due to UNSC Resolution 661) and the no-fly zone (not due to UNSC Resolution) would be abandoned.
To acknowledge that those measures would most likely have remained in place whilst UNMOVIC continued making progress is just too hard, I guess.
Just like proving the case and winning the debate to get UNSC approval for the invasion was just too hard, I guess.
Illegal invasion is much easier, I guess.
They did nothing, Fiona
Fiona: "Eliot, I was somewhat distracted by a toddler at the time of Gulf War 1, so shall rely on you to enlighten me as to how much warning there was about Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, not to mention his appalling attack on Anfal. "
Saddam occupied Kuwait in the first days of August 1990. And Operation Desert Storm didn't get under way until 17 January 1991.
I do recall a lot of anti-American demonstrations whipped up during the interval, but none protesting the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.
Although as you know, Bob Brown objected fairly vociferously to our own government about our allies doing nothing to help the Kurds.
But of course, that only lasted until we did do something to help them.
Paradigms
Well, Ian, now it seems it was not Gulf War 1 that gave Saddam victory, but rather the period "during and after the anti-Saddam uprising". Or, alternatively, he was victorious because he "never used his army in a foreign war" — the invasions of Iran and Kuwait presumably being mere aberrations, albeit somewhat catastrophic ones.
This would seem consistent with your analysis to date. For instance, the Iraq invasion and cocked-up occupation, generally accepted as being fundamentally about securing oil supplies, for you becomes evidence that US administrations are "finally seeing beyond their nose".
Similarly, Jenny Hume notes that "the French were hypocritical" with respect to Iraq, while presumably the performance of various US administrations up to and including Bush 2 has been a legitimate exercise in realpolitik.
Dare I suggest there's a 'paradigm' in all this?
A plaintive cry from the junk shop
"This would seem consistent with your analysis to date. For instance, the Iraq invasion and cocked-up occupation, generally accepted as being fundamentally about securing oil supplies, for you becomes evidence that US administrations are 'finally seeing beyond their nose'."
Honestly Jacob, I had thought better of you. But it seems I have to spell it out: the primary motive of the US administration was oil. I have always said that, on Webdiary and everywhere else. Rather than try to achieve their objectives in Iraq by installing a more compliant dictator than Saddam (ie their own bastard) as they repeatedly tried in Vietnam over the years of the Vietnam War, they tried in Iraq a solution that was more than a short-term fix, and something the founding fathers of their own constitution would approve. They actually tried to set up a democratically elected and accountable government. That was in my view seeing beyond the end of their nose: a different means to their self-interested end.
"Well, Ian, now it seems it was not Gulf War 1 that gave Saddam victory, but rather the period 'during and after the anti-Saddam uprising'. Or, alternatively, he was victorious because he 'never used his army in a foreign war' — the invasions of Iran and Kuwait presumably being mere aberrations, albeit somewhat catastrophic ones."
As Harold Steptoe would say: "Owhh..... Gawd!!!" But then, having thus called on the Almighty, I must turn and thank Him for the control-c function. Instead of having to copy type stuff like that in order to quote it, I can just lift it and drop it.
Then again, I must look on the bright side. If ever I need any hairs split or nits picked, Jacob, you'll get my first call.