Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

What makes it a false dichotomy is the way "do something" is reduced to the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003 when there were available alternatives to that illegal invasion.

Quite so, thanks Craig for addressing that point, which I'd neglected to do.

Such 'turncoats' as Francis Fukuyama proposed alternatives after-the-fact that had been proposed from the outset by the so-called 'pro-Saddam' opposition to the war.

Perhaps as a quid pro quo for the 'turning' of leading pro-war boosters such as Fukuyama, some of us could 'turn' pro-war. It'd be like a holiday to take the line of least resistance, defending a fait accompli.

So argued George Orwell during WW2, and such a formulation had a compelling ring of truth in a nation facing an existential threat.

Such an argument carries less force in a nation that does not face such a threat. In such 'weaker' cases, other considerations - such as the welfare of affected populations, regional stability, the maintenance of wider objectives (e.g., world peace), the preservation of Our Values, etc. - begin to assume greater importance.

Now, if the opponents of the invasion of Iraq were/are objectively pro-Saddam, then it must follow that George Bush Senior and his associates who weighed in against "finishing the job" at the end of Gulf War 1 (for reasons that now seem quite prescient and eminently sensible), were/are also objectively pro-Saddam. Those who supported the invasion at the outset but have since repudiated that position, were/are also pro-Saddam.

Moreover, those leaders of the Free World who are not now actively pursuing military interventions in Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc., are also pro- those obnoxious regimes.

Using such rhetorical artifice, it's possible to argue that those who continue to support this catastrophic debacle, in the face of all evidence of failure, must also be supporters of incompetence, dereliction and criminality.

Was Saddam "right" to claim victory in Gulf War 1?

Of course he was not!!

His Iraqi forces were ejected from Kuwait in accordance with the UN mandate, beaten back, decimated, the monster suffered a crushing humiliation.

But of course, being Saddam, he would make such a claim that would have resonance among pan-Arabic nationalist sensibilities.

Big deal. "Know your enemy" - indeed!

Michael Park: "Not when the regime in control of the deposit is, at best, unreliable, Paul. At no stage have I stated that the US is in this so it only has access."

I've never written that you have. My comments are broadly based off one comment that you'd made. Certainly it'd be unfair to make any sort of an attack, off a comment, without context - hence I didn't make any such attack.

The above comment at least suggests, like me, you understand the situation to be a little deeper than the USA "stealing oil' for this mythical entity called the USA, and so on, and so forth.

It is the US, though, that is in the driver's seat of those contracts (PSAs) being written for the resource under the current regime.

Well yes it is, though, the USA is putting the dollars up on most contracts (USA taxpayers are entitled to a return) (oil PSA's excluded). Personally I believe current Iraqi oil PSA's are a terrible deal (for any oil company), and I'd not put a cent of my own money into speculating on such a deal (as they currently stand). Unless something has changed of late oil companies, it appears, seem to be of the same opinion.

PS Exxon Mobile is currently the biggest "US" oil company (the world's biggest is Saudi Arabian). The largest shareholder of this concern, last time I looked, was Barclay's International Fund. Barclay's Bank is of course a [non] resident USA business concern.

The Democrats, who are calling for phased troop withdrawals, are beginning to point to the fighting in Basra as evidence that the American troop buildup has failed to provide stability and political reconciliation — particularly if the fighting leads one militia, the Mahdi Army, to pull out of its cease-fire; that could lead to a new spate of sectarian violence across the country. Some are saying the fighting strengthens their case for troop withdrawals.

But the McCain campaign is hoping to turn that argument on its head, asserting that the battle in Basra shows just how dangerous the situation on the ground in Iraq is. It says this bolsters Mr. McCain’s argument that a premature withdrawal of American troops would lead to more widespread violence, instability and perhaps even genocide.

“I think that what this demonstrates is that there are very powerful forces that still remain that do not want to see the success of the central government and that would relish the prospect of the American withdrawal so that they could try to fight or shoot their way into power,” said Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser. “Would you rather have the Maliki government in control, or the Iranian-backed special groups in control, or Al Qaeda in control?”

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois suggested the news from Basra highlighted his contention that American military involvement could not solve the deep-seated problems facing Iraq.

The recent fighting between Iraqi government forces and the Shia militia is a problem that cannot be solved by killing more Iraqis. It is the obvious outcome of removing the strong man. It will be up to the Iraq and Iran to resolve the issues.The presence of COW troops will only exacerbate the problem.

Ian MacDougall: "One could not oppose Bush, however much one danced and ducked, without supporting Saddam Hussein."

I have to agree that that's not entirely true - and you will doubtless recall Ian the very large, vocal demonstrations organised by peace activists and political progressives all around the world in the lead up to, and in the aftermath of, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his Anfal genocide.

No? Surely you remember?

These were the same forces which also opposed radical young firebrand Moqtada al Sadr with the same passionate intensity they opposed the Surge.

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. As to the aftermath of the former, I seem vaguely to remember that that pinko Labor government led by that pinko PM Hawke actively participated in the UN-authorised war that led to the return of control of Kuwait to its Emir.

Craig Rowley: "Not so.  One could oppose them both, as one could oppose Saddam Hussein and advocate a means to deal with that despot that was different to the means Bush would authorise."

Quite right. And people can know terrorists exist, anti-American conspiracy theories are lame brain nonsense, and what is re-branded socialist crap - without either supporting Bush or even being right-wing.

"Richard Butler, author of 'Saddam Defiant', headed UNSCOM. Saddam’s efforts to frustrate the UNSCOM inspectors had convinced Butler that he had WMD and was hiding them."

Butler's UNSCOM had been disbanded for half a decade by the time the Bush administration's invasion decision was executed. It was replaced by UNMOVIC.  

Hans Blix, the author of Disarming Iraq, headed UNMOVIC. Blix believes the United States and the United Kingdom wanted black-and-white answers, and instead they got "lots of shades of gray in the reports."

Blix said: "They took away the question marks [in the reports] and put in exclamation points instead!"

One could oppose them both, as one could oppose Saddam Hussein and advocate a means to deal with that despot that was different to the means Bush would authorise.

True enough, although this will undoubtedly be brought back to the "do something/nothing" false dichotomy. The fixation upon 'personalties' (Bush v Saddam) perverts discussion; for instance:

... you have to agree with Saddam's assessment of Gulf War 1: he won it.

Why would anyone care a fig about the assessment of someone who in the same breath one accurately denounces as a ruthless megalomaniac and tyrant?

Allowing the monster to determine the parameters of discussion is just another form of capitulation.

"Oh, life is fierce and wild
And the heart of the earth is stone.
And the hand of a murdered child
Will not bear thinking on.

Sigh, wind in the pine,
Cover it over with snow;
But terrible things were done
Long, long ago"

- (Douglas Stewart)

And terrible things are still being done today, by us, endorsed by the strategists. Is this ok by you? It's not by me.

BAGHDAD — American warplanes struck targets in the southern port city of Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias there, according to British and American military officials.......

In Washington, President Bush reiterated his support for Mr. Maliki, describing the offensive as “a defining moment” in the history of a free Iraq and a test for its government. The president said that there had been “substantial progress” in Iraq. “But it’s still a dangerous, fragile situation,” he said.

The United States will continue to help the Iraqi forces if asked, the president said, but the Iraqis “are in the lead.”

This from another point of view four years ago. Mission accomplished indeed:

The Shia revolt promised before the war by those in favour of the American invasion has started, but with a twist: it is against American rule. It is just over a year since the US-led invasion of Iraq began. In that year we have seen the lies used to justify the war exposed. We have also seen that the "liberation" of Iraq only involved liberating its resources for transnational corporations. Its people are under occupation by US imperialism and within this same year we have seen an insurgency against the occupation start and intensify.

The current revolt in Iraq is to be expected. It is the latest in a long series of protests which have resulted in Iraqis being shot at by their "liberators." This time they are fighting back and on a large scale. Fighting has broken out in towns and cities which contain over 70% of Iraq's population. This must have put a damper any plans the US may have had to the mark the fall of Baghdad.

But credit where credit is due. The US has managed the near impossible. It has turned a population who used to be subject to a vicious dictator against them. Saying that, backing that dictator at the height of his tyranny obviously would not have helped nor would invading the country and killing over 10,000 civilians in the process. While it was predictable that the Sunni population would oppose the Americans (at least to any bar the US state), the fact that the US has added the Shia to their enemies is quite impressive. This group, which makes up the majority of Iraqis, suffered immensely under Saddam. That the Americans have turned their neutrality into a mass uprising says a lot about the regime they have imposed.

There has been no progress in Iraq. The Iraqis are the long suffering victims of major power plays.

Michael Park: "No moral comment, just the observation. Right and wrong will eventually be judged by history but, in the meantime, the US continues to set about guaranteeing its access to resources - access, not of necessity ownership."

This scenario harks back to the OPEC blockade days. I've no doubt that at the time it was probably the most really vulnerable America had been since before WWII. There is also no doubt that having lived through something like that (many older heads in the State Department etc) would've had an experience that shaped their views. I've also no doubt that thousands upon thousands (spanning decades) of hypothetical situations, analysis, strategies, and emergency planning is also floating around (still) in the never land of offices in a whole host of departments.

The problem with saying that it's to gain US access (for the empire) denies the realities of the current time.

Firstly it ignores the reality of the global market; a market so convoluted, so multi-layered it is impossible to say where anything originates. A yahoo like Chavez might make good entertainment for the nut-jobs; the reality is, though, that most of what he is on about is utter crap and delusion – Chavez has much say over the final destination of his nation’s product as I do.

Secondly it ignores the reality (since the end of the cold war) of just how integrated the globalized world has become. This is not a zero sum game. The USA cannot win and everybody else loses; in such a situation the USA ultimately will lose, and so on and so forth. It is simply not in anyone's interest to mess with the status quo (outside of total lunatics). China cannot have massive growth to supply markets that don't exist. Every single nation faces this very fact of global life. Nations are on the constant lookout to build markets not shrink them.

The current situation suits suppliers of a product, and it suits the buyers of the product; even with the charade of all the bluster it's not about to change anytime soon. It's, in very basic terms, simply not possible for the USA to have access to this product without others having equal access. And even it was made possible; it would be ultimately suicidal for the USA or anyone else to take up the running.

And this is not even taking into account the convoluted ownership of many of "these nations’" major companies. It is very probable that a person living in say Sweden (never even been to the USA), can get better value out of say Exxon than 90% of Americans ever will.

Yes, there is likely a fear that this region may get out of hand at some point. It is not outside the realms of possibility that in the future Iran (or perhaps some other lunatic) could consider attacking Israel or even the ultimate nightmare: Saudi Arabia. So having a presence there would, in some schools, be privately seen as helpful (not only in the USA). Ultimately though it is delusional for anyone to believe this access is strictly reserved or ever could be strictly reserved for the Americans. Sure if this event had taken place in 1975 I probably would hold an entirely different view.

Why for example would the USA wish to stop China buying oil? If China was such a major concern wouldn't be easier halting US companies moving there, and US consumers buying their products? None of it makes even slight sense.

"Otherwise, you have to agree with Saddam's assessment of Gulf War 1: he won it."

Ian, in the best of possible worlds one does not have to agree with anything.

It is too late now for the if and buts and how we ended up in this endless mess.

Like Candide we could simply cultivate our garden.

Watching flowers grow is beautiful, slaughtering children is not.

Maybe we could all agree on that.

On that note I shall take my leave from a discussion that achieves little; only exposes hypocrisy and its inevitable consequence - conflict.

Before we can deal with conflict we have to deal with hypocrisy and the inconsistencies in our individual and collective thought processes and behaviour; processes quite often motivated by defensiveness, self interest and ego rather than genuine compassion or empathy.

Maybe we are all simply confused; too much data, too few brain cells (hell I'm a bloody albatross, I know how it feels).

Nothing personal in the above Ian, simply a catholic observation of humanity, moi well and truly included.

adieu

The first part of yesterday evening's (just repeated) Late Night Live, The Monk and the Journalist: Tibet in the News, is worth a listen.

But if the assault in Basra leads the Mahdi Army to break completely with its current cease-fire, which has helped to tamp down attacks in Iraq during the past year, there is a risk of escalating violence and of replaying 2004. That year, the militia fought intense battles with American forces that destabilized the entire country.

The assault has already touched off violent reprisals by some outraged Mahdi supporters in other cities, including in Baghdad, where the boom of rocket fire rattled the city all day Wednesday and continued Thursday with reports of a rocket strike on the fortified Green Zone near the United States Embassy..........

In Baghdad, close-packed crowds numbering perhaps 5,000 demonstrated in Sadr City, the focal point of the capital’s protests, taking over the main street, chanting, dancing, holding up banners, and declaring their readiness to continue to oppose the Iraqi Army’s attempt to wrest control of Basra from Mr. Sadr’s Shiite militiamen, a major onslaught that began on Tuesday.

“It is unfair,” said one of the protesters, Jabbar Azem Hassan, 65. “They are killing our sons and they are harming innocent people. We need to reform the national government from all parts of the Iraqi populace.”

 With Bush urging the Iraqi Army on, the battle for control of Basra is looking more like a civil war. How many more Iraqis  will  have to  die before this madman  stops interfering?

Ian MacDougall: "[Vietnam] was a war to prevent democracy."

That's an almost Chomskyesque statement, Ian, but despite the similarity I don't have any partcular argument with it.

Now, move forward less than a decade and we have a 'puppet' regime for which the US pulled out all the stops to defend, on the basis that it represented the 'true voice' of 'democratic Vietnam'.

I'm sure you must be aware we're not talkng about 'reality' here, but rather the avowed rationale for the whole tragic episode. That the US regime of the time didn't have to work so hard to float the illusion is merely an indication of how far we might have come.

Now...

"...a ruthless monster like Saddam in possession of WMD would cause me to be very grateful for all the water and all the land that separates me from Mesopotamia and the rest of the Middle East."

But the ruthless monster didn't, and was not proved to have had.

With all that water and land between 'us' and 'it', why would you have feared 'it' as much as sharks, hoons and irate cattle?

Paul Morrella, in the end it doesn't really matter who supplied Saddam with weapons and my statement that Russia "made no false claims" meant that they didn't speak with all the hypocrisy that the US and GB did in acting with such horror about Iraq whilst arming it covertly at the same time. In the end, if you sell arms to someone the chances are they will be used.

What all this has to do with the false claims, outright lies and manipulations used by Bush, Cheney and the Neocons to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and destroy the infrastructure of both counties, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people using the tragedy of 9/11 is a great mystery.

What it has all achieved is even a greater mystery. How it can be solved is the greatest mystery of all and no tales of Saddam's shredding machines and what a tyrant he was will change the fact that the Middle East is now in a state of utter chaos.

Perhaps if those who made these appalling decisions to go in and wrench the Middle East asunder admitted they were wrong – we may begin to see a pathway out – maybe. But while they continue to make inane statements as George Bush and Dick Cheney do every few months, that victory is within sight and democracy is flourishing, whether they actually believe it or are just saying it for the audience of mid-West America, this is probably the worst war the world is now engaged in.

It has no middle or end and no good guys or bad guys. It's a war of propaganda where the innocents are the victims every day and the word "terrorism" is bandied about to cover every action from one side of the world to the furthest corner on the other. As for WMD's – the USA is the greatest storehouse on the planet but apparently, as in so many other factors, is exempt from the restrictions it imposes on others.

Thus in Iraq we never know who really is fighting who – in Australia an Indian doctor flying to visit his family is caught up in a debacle of utter insanity that would be comical if it wasn't so serious for his freedom (and by implication everyone else’s) . In the USA people prattle on about Fidel Castro and then calmly accept that on the same island dozens of men are locked up for years on end, never accused of a crime, never facing a court, waterboarded, humiliated, tortured.

In Melbourne a group of alleged "terrorists" are shackled in court and locked up in cells for 23 hours a day for some obscure reason and made to wear orange suits to mirror those at Gitmo in a painfully and pathetic attempt at demonising them even further.

In the UK you are filmed virtually on every street in the country and any child of ten who commits even the smallest crime has their DNA and fingerprints recorded – soon to include all children. It will spread.

Welcome to the New World. Thank God I'm an old and much maligned baby boomer.

Why the US did not invade Baghdad in 1991:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome.

G Bush snr.

And this  from Schwarzkopf & Gates.

And this from Cheney

Maybe they got it right the first time. The rest is history and history has vindicated their warnings.

Eliot Ramsey

The obvious question to ask the clique peddling the "West supplied Saddam's weapons" line is, "Which weapons"? That's usually followed by lots of bluster and side-stepping and  waffle about "dual use" chemicals at plastics factories and fertilizer warehouses.

Well, probably yes. I'd doubt though it would be of much use. The USA being the number one supporter of Saddam has now entered into folk-lore status. It comes under the heading of belief preservation - much the same way as religion operates.

We've covered debt-to-GDP, and we've covered the value of the floating dollar, and we've covered the US inflation problem that isn't, and we've covered the USA's non-support for Iraq; and now for my next myth busting trick (good idea for show): The USA has lost trillions upon trillions of dollars in Iraq - all of it magically disappearing into the never, never.

Any even semi-capable figures man; would, you would think, actually have a cursory glance at the actual figures. By far and away the highest expenditure is on things like weapons, and associated products (made in the USA). Things like wages, and future pensions (paid to US citizens with most choosing to return and remain in the USA), things like contracts such as re-building Iraq (most given to US based companies). Things like future contracts (the value of which cannot at this time be calculated) etc. 

The only thing that does become apparent is that there is a cost (in pure monetary terms); however, it's nothing like the trillions of dollars being bandied about by our world's latter day myth makers.

Michael de Angelos

The Russians made no false claims, Paul Morrella, about supplying arms to Iraq.

Of course they made false claims - exactly the same false claims every other nation did - about 72 of them. That is what nations do; that is what businesses do, that is what people do. Have I mysteriously joined the sixth grade belief preservation class? What, the tooth fairy is part two of the course?

Have a look at more than one of the Russian millionaires after the cold war. Now have a look at what one or two or even more were doing during the mid 80's. I don't like saying it; however, it's "believers" such as you that make it all so easy - along with fucking it for the rest of us!

They are the ideologues that President Eisenhower warned about and they had two aims – to dismantle the FDR "contract with America", and the American Empire project (which is beginning to look like a dismal failure). They act the opposite to every thing that is principal to the America character which is about negotiating, compromising and settling on a deal.

Complete and utter crap. The US State Department is the foreign policy expert. It's staffed by highly intelligent people earning shit money, and getting even less pats on the back - people that could be just as easily out selling credit (earning big bonuses) and driving the latest fast car. Doing a thankless job because (and fuck knows why) they might slightly believe in something - and this takes into account all that naturally learned cynicism. People that work under numerous administrations, and having to constantly put up with the dickheads that believe it is a good thing to get involved in government, and show everybody, their special little world plan.

The truth: Nobody ever made Iraq, and Iran launch at each other like cat's and dog's. They did it to themselves, and for themselves. People profited off the back of that idiocy .  Welcome to reality - where no apologies are ever really given!

Michael de Angelos

The Russians made no false claims, Paul Morrella, about supplying arms to Iraq.

I've no idea what this statement is meant to mean. The USSR was the biggest supplier of arms to Iraq by a country mile (it's not even an argument). Tracking arms sales is not very difficult. Fragments of metal, in scripted made in the USSR, are usually a dead give away. Communism is generally factory intensive; it's not illogical that such a system would excel in arms manufacture - and it did.

 The difference with the Iraq invasion is the US never does anything without considering its personal interest first and that has included both world wars. It shows how powerful the so-called neo-cons had become since the demise of Richard Nixon and how entrenched they became during the puppet Reagan years.

Every single nation considers its personal interest. USA foreign policy is over seen by the State Department - mostly idealistic and highly qualified young girls and boys that become the cynics of our age. People that work in a thankless task (under numerous administrations) for shit money, and even less pats on the back - signing people up to the latest credit card would be so much easier.

The constantly changing system is the true strength of the system. The USA has achieved in a world of madness - often the only savior in that world of madness. The USA is not an ideology; the USA is an idea.

Ian, the invasion of Iraq wasn't an intervention in even a remotely humanitarian sense. It was conceived and sold as a 'war of necessity' against an imminent — 45-minutes, aarrrgggghhhh!! — threat to regional, if not world, peace and security.

No, intervention 'on the side of the angels', if you will, is a debate the world has yet to have, in any real or formal sense. Kofi Annan's vision of a UN fast-response strike force was supposed to be an effort along those lines, but the idea fell by the wayside for want of interest. Perhaps the stakes aren't high enough?

The 'debate' in relation to the invasion of Iraq was essentially a conversation mired in ignorance, fear and loathing. Fear of non-existent WMD, fear of spurious associations with Islamist terror, fear of the loathsome monster Saddam, fear of fear itself.

As for the thesis that the US has begun "to see beyond the end of their nose", that one will require a little more field testing. Two swallows do not a summer make.

Counterfactually, in the previous century Korea and Vietnam were two 'interventions' that were, at least declaratively, about planting democracy in those places. Similarly to Afghanistan and Gulf War 1, those had some glow of international legitimacy, thus garnering considerable multilateral support. Meanwhile, one may easily think of several extant blemishes on the self-consciously elephantine imperial proboscis.

Hi Justin. Egg on face is much preferable to the worst case scenario. Tim Blair might have made fun of you.

Oh yes, graphic manipulation can be a trap, but the Next Big Thing is almost upon us. The brave new world of Voice Morphing:

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government."

So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

The Russians made no false claims, Paul Morrella, about supplying arms to Iraq.

If you remember it was the Matrix Churchill scandal that basically brought down the John Major Conservative government and their manipulations in jailing innocent directors of a company who were selling electrical components – claimed to be nuclear components – to Iraq whilst spying for the British at great risk and then accused of treachery. Finally released from jail on appeal the full scandal unfortunately ushered in the wolf in sheep's clothing – Tony Blair.

The difference with the Iraq invasion is the US never does anything without considering its personal interest first and that has included both world wars. It shows how powerful the so-called neo-cons had become since the demise of Richard Nixon and how entrenched they became during the puppet Reagan years.

They are the ideologues that President Eisenhower warned about and they had two aims – to dismantle the FDR "contract with America", and the American Empire project (which is beginning to look like a dismal failure). They act the opposite to every thing that is principal to the America character which is about negotiating, compromising and settling on a deal.

Hence they ended up with a dolt like George W. Bush who went into two wars he cannot win and has no way out. For all we know, Saddam may have been assassinated by his own men by now.

Just as nearly a third of the top German brass were permanently planning to assassinate Hitler from '39 onwards and either didn't have the opportunity or hesitated because of old-fashioned ideas of loyalty as most came from the classes of nobility.

By now we may have had a US friendly Iraqi general strongman running Iraq without the chaos – or in two or four years’ time

Instead it looks like we have endless years of chaos ahead that somehow those how opposed this war are expected to come up a solution for. I can't. All I know is the CIA, who are at least experts, said "don't do it".

Thanks Jacob for updating me re that photo; shee when it comes to graphics manipulation you just can't trust anyone; I shall take my leave and wipe all this egg of my gullible mug.

Jenny Hume: "What I hear here is people saying, because these people over there will only mass murder each other if we take out the dictator holding them together through terror, then we should always just leave them to their fate."

If this was just about a simple exercise in "taking out the dictator", then I suspect this 'debate' wouldn't be taking place. But this is about lies, prevarications, incompetence, dereliction, and a resulting morass in which hundreds of thousands have died violently. This has been a textbook example of how not to take out a dictator, given some basic humanitarian and other standards.

I certainly do not think "people over there will only mass murder each other if we take out the dictator holding them together". Certain conditions have to obtain in order for that to happen, and the 'planners' failed to manage those.

In the lead-up to the invasion, we were cajoled by the 'architects' to anticipate a relatively short campaign resulting in a "beacon of democracy", an LA in Mesopotamia. Of course, none of this transpired, indeed virtually all the assumptions and projections made by the war-mongers have been proved wrong.

I've lately been wondering whether there's any set of circumstances that could possibly obtain under which the Bush Administration could ever admit failure in this enterprise. If you haven't been, Jenny, then I envy you for your philosophical equillibrium.

I guess if one judges success by the fact of a tyrant hanging on the end of a lump of rope, then it's all gone swimmingly.

Note: People will be hard pressed finding evidence of Iran/ Soviet arms deals during the 80's. The relations were publicly strained throughout that time - hence the big show of Soviet support for Iraq. China was officially the largest supplier to Iran - much of this taking place through the pretence of North Korea. However any person thinking Soviet supplies to intermediary nations such as Syria and Libya (both major suppliers of Iran) were "final destination unknown" is naive to the extreme.

The fact is that 80's arms' dealing was an orgy of money that all were involved in - successful arms dealers were being treated (and paid) much better than international rock stars. The United States supplied both sides; the Soviet Union supplied both sides; hell, everybody supplied both sides. There was no "west's bastard", and there wasn't an "east's bastard" either - outside of the combatants nobody was unhappy with a continued unending stalemate. After all it was a 10 billion dollar a year industry - now adjust that in today's terms taking account of inflation - and everybody was getting a piece of the action!

In the world of international arms there is no good or bad side; there is only those that pay cold hard cash, and those that don't.

Michael de Angelos

Saddam was a mean murderous bastard – but he was the West's bastard. They armed him and supported him covertly and tut tutted their disapproval publicly.

The Soviet Union was easily (it's not even close) the biggest weapons supplier to Iraq. They (Soviets) did and said similar things; only they also sold weapons to Iran during the war - not a bad bit of business (would make any arms dealer swell with pride), and one of the only profitable industries (arms) the Soviets actually had.

Mr Saddam was not the "west's bastard"; he was his own bastard. A self promoting opportunist every step of the way; he naturally understood what people wanted, and he knew how to gain a personal advantage from giving it to them. He simply made the understandable error of misunderstanding the climate of the American political landscape in 1990.

Bush (the elder) was coming to the end of long-term Republican rule, and facing an economic recession - he was on the nose. He needed a circuit breaker and Saddam (unfortunately for him) supplied it. The circuit breaker failed and Bush (the elder) went on to be decimated at the next election. A small failed political gamble (in the larger scheme of things) is the reason we're in this current position.

PS The first Iraq war had a lot more than just the USA going along for the ride.

Newton's Third Law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Justin. That photo to which you linked, of sailors forming the words "FUCK IRAQ" on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, is widely recognised as being a photoshopped falsification. By whom and for what purpose is of no enduring interest to me, but anyway I really can't imagine the commander of such a ship allowing such a display.

What does interest me is that in 2003 around two-thirds (from memory) of the US population believed Saddam's Iraq to have had direct agency in the attacks of Sept 11 2001. This was a result of the innuendo and dog-whistling of the Bush White House in drumming up support for their war, fabricating linkages between the Saddam regime and al-Qaeda that simply did not exist.

It follows that, in all probability, two-thirds of US front-line 'grunts' held a similar misconception of Iraqi complicity in the Sept 11 attacks. I'd submit that such a prejudicial mindset prevalent among occupying forces made the Abu Ghraib abuses, the Haditha outrage, the destruction of Falluja, and untold other excesses entirely inevitable.

Add to all that the menace of private security contractors (i.e., mercenaries) operating in Iraq, and the consequences for the 'battle' for Iraqi hearts-and-minds of the Bush Administration's war-mongering fabrications is probably inestimable.

Gee, those guys must be so bloody proud of themselves, eh!

And greetings to you, Father Park.

Brother Sun

The USA and UK should have known the history of Iraq – certainly the UK as they virtually created the country by attempting to unite various desert tribes that had always had reasons to war with each other. The only way they could do it was with a strong man in control; ie Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was a mean murderous bastard – but he was the West's bastard. They armed him and supported him covertly and tut tutted their disapproval publicly. That's why their decision to take him out was so bizarre. To have waited and fomented a coup and allowed another general to take over would have avoided all this carnage. No dictator lasts forever or is invincible.

Jenny Hume, of course the carnage of bombs in markets and the slaughter of Iraqi civilians that continues is appalling. We only have the word of official US sources that it is by so-called insurgents, though, and I wouldn't trust those sources for one second. There is any number of reasons for other groups to foment trouble either to keep the US there or to get them out.

But there is also a long history of payback between various Arab sects that goes back generations. That is their way and for our leaders (Howard) Bush and Blair to be so utterly ignorant of the culture of these people is a disgrace. They have also produced a generation of children who will now demand punishment for the deaths of their relatives.

One could almost weep when you see Bush and now Hillary Clinton talk about their brave boys and how they will bring them home now they have created democracy in Iraq. They've done nothing of the kind – they can't even face reality – it's a dismal and utter failure that will just get worse and worse and plague them for generations and Americans will simply see it all through the prism of Fox News.

The American government deserves all the crap it cops regarding this war and more. The American punters were simply motivated by their ignorance, fear and their sense of superiority and misplaced patriotism. Fortunately most have now changed their minds albeit too late.

And it is not only the left who have been throwing the crap. There are now many from the right (who supported this war) who have woken up to their arrogance and "self righteousness".

As we all know those who accuse others of shortcomings quite often have those short comings in abundance.

I find Jenny's use of the terms "gullible' and "naive" in relation to others fits the above to a tee.

Sadly the Christian Right leaders have played a major part in convincing their sheep that smart bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorus is OK to slaughter "ragheads". After all we do this for their own good. To quote Jenny: It is a terrible indictment of the faith they claim to hold.

Self righteousness and arrogance to the max!

Using a hypothetical invasion by Japan as an exemplar to show how great we Australians would behave in comparison to the Iraqis is really clutching at straws.

Australians like Iraqis are human beings and I'm sure if Sydney was disintegrated like Baghdad, people questioned, people tortured, people murdered, people raped and relieved of their wealth then the dinky di ethos would disappear overnight.

I suspect it would not be a fair go for all (if it ever was) but, I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder. Any cursory look at occupied countries will support same to quite a degree. It is not that the punters are animals to start with but if you destroy a city and its infrastructure, its social networks and treat the residents as sub human as the American Military does then what should you expect?

I suspect this reveals the mind set of the American Military in relation to those they claim to free. It is childish and dehumanising but indicative of their mission. Iraq is now FUBAR. The crusaders must feel pretty good about that.

It’s a sad fact that Iraqis intentionally kill Iraqis, this of course is not good but when Americans do same it is purely accidental. Bullshit. There is ample evidence that theft, murder, rape and torture are committed on a regular basis by Americans, and that's only the reported cases. How many are covered up or simply not reported?

The Christian Right easily dismiss these American murderers as doing it because they are stressed, frightened and so on (we must feel sorry for them) but when Iraqis kill they do so for they are evil, not because of fear or stress or self protection, they are simply evil Muslims.

At least the American soldiers get to go home after a tour of duty, many will never be the same again, but the Iraqi punter has to live with debacle for another 95 years (if McCain has his pathetic way). How stressful is that. No wonder millions have left Iraq forever and millions will never be the same physically or mentally or financially.

All good clean Christian fun.

The biggest mistake we can make as human beings is to delude ourselves into believing we are superior, for it is such egocentricity that got us into this mess in the first place. We are better than you, we know what is best for you so take your medicine and don't complain.

Sadly the manner in which Christians have used their faith to justify this slaughter is equally as nauseating as the manner in which Muslims justify their slaughter as God's will.

It is a terrible indictment of the faith they claim to hold.

Finally when these murderers (and their supporters) are challenged for their disgusting and hypocritical behaviour they simply claim as Blair and Bush and their Muslim counterparts that at the end of the day it will be God they have to answer to.

How gutless is that!

But this whole debacle has the stench of gutlessnes, both from the Muslim and Christian perspective.